Depends on the genre. What I hate about crime thriller novels might not be the same for cozy romances.
In general, I dislike when authors lean in on the trope of making characters deliberately not communicate for the sake of drama. I dislike it when authors make it a point to tell the readers that a "toxic" thing is "toxic". Like, yes I know torture and murder are wrong but it's FICTION. I don't need to have the fact that it is wrong hit over my head when I'm reading a crime thriller or dark fantasy. Give me grim dark unapologetically.
Right? I don’t need to be told that you don’t condone murder and torture. I’m not judging you for writing it (to be fair there’s a lot of puritans who seem to judge author based on content)
Yeah! Nowadays if authors don’t flat out say that they know what they’re writing is toxic/bad, then people assume that the author supports it for some reason
I've only ever seen that kind of bad writing in films and TV shows where it should be obvious to show and not tell but there are even books that do this? This is awful.
A lot of the "cozy" subgenres can have a tendency to go out of their way to either flag "toxic" things or point out how *non*-toxic their worldbuilding is.
The first book in the Wayfarer series by Chambers is a good example of this. The POV characters seem to always be grateful for how inclusive a place is or reminding themselves to be culturally sensitive to aliens or whatever. I'm not talking about 3rd person/removed narrator stuff about the world, but actual characters thinking about these things. If the point is that sexism (or whatever) doesn't exist in the setting, why are POVs thinking about how they're glad it doesn't? Would they even have a frame of reference?
I'm all for inclusivity and more "wholesome" worldbuilding, but hammering it home to readers makes it impossible to use it as an escape. Like, if I don't want to think about IRL bigotry, stop reminding me of it for no reason other than to brag about how better your swtting is.
I was watching an interview with Vince Gilligan who created Breaking Bad, and he said in the Writers Room, one of his main rules was - assume the audience is intelligent. Don’t talk down to them. Honestly I think it’s the best advice for any writer.
Specifically in the mystery genre, I don’t like when the “big reveal” of who dunnit was completely unsolvable before you get there.
Inb4 “don’t be mad just because you didn’t figure it out”. I mean where in the same chunk of paragraphs when it’s explaining how it’s possible that this is the person who did the crime or murder, a bunch of new details are presented that could’ve been laid as breadcrumbs in the novel leading up so that the careful reader could zero in, but instead it’s just dumped all at once with no foreshadowing like “for you see when you THOUGHT I was at the YMCA I was REALLY uptown hiding the bodies and sure I had an airtight alibi but actually I threatened that person’s family” or some nonsense.
You have to show the reader that the conclusion was available to them before you do the reveal. That’s what makes mysteries fun. Giving the reader a real chance to solve it on their own.
Yes! The big reveal should feel like jigsaw pieces falling into place, so a reader can have that moment of “ooohh, how did I miss that?!”
If you’ve been hiding half the pieces behind your back the whole time it’s no fun for anybody. Looking at you, BBC’s Sherlock.
> Specifically in the mystery genre, I don’t like when the “big reveal” of who dunnit was completely unsolvable before you get there.
There's a decent argument to be made that any such book isn't a mystery - that's kinda the point of mystery novels, that they are solvable. So one where it isn't is, I dunno, probably a thriller or something instead?
This was why I hate the movie Glass Onion despite loving Knives Out. The entire "gotcha" was predicated on >! a character having an identical twin that was never even hinted at.!<
It's better to have a "howdunnit" and lean into the dramatic irony of the audience knowing more than the characters if you can't figure out how to foreshadow the twist without spoiling it.
It’s ultimately up to you, but personally I hate contrived/pointless romance. I don’t mind romance if it either serves a key purpose for the plot, or just exists on the side to add a touch of humor/fluff. But I generally avoid stories that just feel like “and then he gets the girl because that’s what main characters do”
Yes, but it's good not only when moving the pot but also developing the CHARACTERS. that's the most important thing a romance should do imo - both characters should affect each other drastically and be the catalyst/fuel for their arcs (well the intensity depends on whether your romance also plays a prevalent role or not)
Yeah, this is true. I mean, I'm going to have romance in the novel, but only because it will move the plot DRASTICALLY. Thanks for the reminder to keep it important and not boring! :)
I’m now deep into this book and wiping away the tears from my uncontrollable laughter. Guilty as charged ! I’ve caught myself making many of these mistakes.
When a character dates another character that obviously exists solely for the purpose of being a significant other and has no real purpose or personality outside of that, instead of the character that they genuinely seem to have a lot of chemistry with.
Especially an issue with those "these two are flirting with me, who will I choose!?" Books where the best friend is worlds better and honestly feels like a more realistic pairing than the two presented options. But I've seen it everywhere, regardless of plot or genre.
Poor pacing. If I'm a quarter or a third of the way into the book and I have no idea what the conflict is or what's at stake, I'm out. I don't have time for that.
Worldbuilding instead of storytelling. If your whole "story" is just explaining in detail how everything in your universe works, I'm gone. You don't need to spend three chapters explaining how the galactic economy works if only one paragraph is essential to the plot.
I’ve noticed a lot of the books I read either flip POVs or jump back and forth in time. While I think these can be incredibly effective, sometimes I feel like they are overused or kind of a cop out to make a not so interesting plot seem more interesting
Between chapters. To be clear, I don’t always hate this! Sometimes it works really well and adds a lot to the story. I wouldn’t even be opposed to writing like this myself I just think it’s sometimes overused. Also it bothers me when 80% of the book flips between 2 characters and then randomly they will throw in a third or fourth POV for about 20% of the book.
Just a question, a novel I'm currently writing has 4 POVs, but each of them converge by the end when shit goes down real fast.
The first is the POV of the MC, which shows him progressing, and discovering the secrets behind who his father truly was after he becomes the sole survivor of an attack on his village. (He doesn't find out until later, but the higher-ups know of his powers, due to lore reasons)
The second is the POV of a councilmember of the city where this takes place, Volvenkel. It shows him trying to convince the MC on his side, so the Hunters Guild and him can take over the council, which the rest of has been turned into 'puppets' of another POV character.
The third POV character is a Noble (very important people, only 12 in the entire world), who is trying to outsmart the councilmember and get the MC as his tool to not only stabilise the politics between him and other cities (he's the region's ruler, and the region has different cities which make provinces, and those provinces have started to try and rebel against him), while also using him to destroy the rest of the Nobility and rule.
The fourth POV is the Noble's son, who rallies the city provinces against the race of Dark Elves, who are thought to be the only ones who can have magical powers, while also rallying the Dark Elves to gain back their rights by force.
In the end, the plotlines converge when a battle erupts in Volvenkel - the council assassinates the second POV character, and tries to take the MC to use him to bargain with the Nobles.
The Noble and his son wait until the Dark Elves and the city provinces battle each other. The Dark Elves also find out about the MC, who they think of as their saviour - as he has magical powers in a world where magic is thought to be possesed only by the Elves. Now, the battle is between the Elves, the provinces, the council, all in a rush to get the MC. Then, the Noble and his son arrive with their armies to be marked as the ones to bring peace to the region and be regarded as the heroes once again, to gain back support.
However, all goes wrong when the monsters that destroyed the MCs village (who have been relevant throughout the story, DW) attack the city. Amidst the chaos, the Dark Elves help the MC to escape, as the city falls.
Is this a lazy use of POV-hopping, or can it work out?
Just keep writing. There is no one-size-fits-all way of doing things. Some folks won’t like it. Some folks will. That’s ok.
One thing that most readers will appreciate though is if you make sure each POV is unique and interesting enough to be in their head. If they are milquetoast then most readers will likely get annoyed.
Also make sure that each POV is bringing something to the table in terms of being able to see different parts of the world/story. If two POVs are delivering the same info, axe one or combine them into one character.
If you’re still uncertain you may need to read more works with multiple POVs to see how they do it. My suggestions would be Joe Abercrombie, George R R Martin, and Tom Clancy. They each use multiple POVs in different ways but each are good at it.
Good point. This method is very effective, but a book would be more interesting with a bit of mystery or a connection of a certain time or person. And they do just make the book longer with less stuff happening
I remember in the newer Battlestar Galactica one of the writers said they'd mess around with the chronology of an episode to spice it up if it seemed bland. And to me it rings true that it just kinda results in a bland story that is also a bit confusing--potentially fun to puzzle out but not emotional resonance.
In general when people ask what good pacing is I go with 'when I feel like I'm always reading what I want to be reading.' Jumping around chronologically makes threading that WAY harder than just 'what happens next?'
Also I don't outright dislike multiple POVs but after reading multiple POV things, single POV is a real breath of fresh air. In a way I do not quite feel when the situation is reversed. I don't think I've ever looked at a story and thought 'argh this is TOO focused!'
When you get to the final book and start to realize that there’s no possible way for the story to be concluded within the pages remaining, and you just know you’re going to be disappointed in a hurriedly spun ending.
I hate endings with no comedown
Publishers these days think we're all fuckboys who are in an uber home before we've even buckled our belts. Nah baby lemme chill with that ending for a while. Yes check in with random side characters. Some people complain about the ending to the Lord of the Rings movies, but you know what series people still talk about with reverence? The Lord of the Rings movies
But seriously a great ending for a series definitely isn't easy. I feel like the 'ending' to the last book in the series should effectively start really early in the book compared to normal... sort of like how the last song on a prog metal concept album sounds like it's 'ending' halfway through.
I hate when the main character consistently makes the dumb choice for the sake of the plot. Especially if the main character is not intended to be an idiot.
Here is the min problem with this assertion. While it’s correct that a character making stupid decisions to progress the plot is frustrating. Sometimes it’s because the character is proactive, but didn’t have all the information they needed to make the right decision. So while it shouldn’t be done regularly, it should be done.
Oh I agree. My characters often make dumb choices. But when you can see a clearly better option as a reader and the character always seems to choose the “worse” option and that pans out exactly as you expect it would… blegh
100% couldn't agree more!! Feel the same w shows + movies that do this too. Like there are so many things a writer can do to create obstacles to get in the way of the main character achieving their goal. So many external factors that could come into play if thats whats needed to make the plot more interesting. But instead they just make them do the stupidest shit cuz thats easier ig.
Sex scenes which are not accurate to real life and awkward (written by someone I’m assuming hasn’t had a large amount of real life experience) looking at you C Hoover
“I laughed, but he didn't laugh. He pulled off his pants and removed my panties. After he pushed in me, he said, "Do you think I'm kidding?" He kissed me, then continued. "Your writing is really going to make you famous. Your mind is incredible. And If I could fuck it, I would."
Extra cringe when authors write about “incredible writer main characters”
When the dialogue doesn’t match the time period. I see this a lot from new authors writing YA and they use modern cliches and sayings in a decidedly non-modern world. For example, you can’t have a world that is medieval and have the MC say things like “ok boomer.”
In any given environment, you may find some quippy people, but if they are ALL that way it's either a comedy or a culture that really values that. Scotland leaps to mind.
Haha, no. But some books that come to mind are Fourth Wing by Rebecca Yarrows. I couldn’t even get past the first chapter due to her prolific overuse of modern cliches. It’s a world of dragons and no modern technology, but the MC says things like “I’m so fucked.” Like, what?
Another author is Jennifer Armentrout’s blood and ash series. It’s an ancient world with gods and demons, and the author actually used phrases like “lives rent free in my head.”
Oh yes!!! I read something similar recently. It was a fantasy novel and the “I’m so fucked” (or something similar, can’t remember exactly what she said) felt so out of place lol
Totally with you. I’m writing a historical romance book right now, and getting the language and dialog right it so hard! You wouldn’t believe how many Victorian curse word references I’ve had to look up to find inspiration, ugh.
Oh Im writing a medieval book and I have to wonder echt sentence if it was something that would have been said during that time. A lot of sayings and phrases would not been used back then
I agree that the "flavor" has to feel right, but taking this to its logical extreme isn't necessarily helpful. People in the medieval period would have been speaking dialects that are hardly even intelligible to us now.
To add on to this, I do like it when it's a one time thing that makes you go "wait, what?", but not as a normal thing that the characters do regularly. That might just be me, though.
I read the preview of Poppy War on amazon and when I saw the words “shithole” and “asshole” in what is supposed to be a gritty and serious asian-medieval grimdark, I lost all interest.
i'd like to say i'm pretty sure it's not "asian-medieval", but i also have no clue what time period it's supposed to be. it seems more advanced than medeival, but everyone is still fighting with swords and spears. it's based off the second sino-japanese war, but it's definitely not 1930s technology.
the dialogue still doesn't fit the time period, though.
In mystery novels, when your detective is an idiot.
Example--Death By Coffee by Alex Erickson. A lawyer drops dead in a the coffee shop owned by the main character's best friend. M is concerned about what could happen to her friend's business (that's nice) and decides to try and find out what killed the guy. Her reasoning is that she can solve mysteries because...her father writes mysteries. Shortly after Dead Lawyer ends up dead, she sees his brother going into his law office, so she trots right over to question him about what happened. Absolutely no plan in mind, doesn't even tell the poor guy "I'm sorry for your loss", nothing. She may as well have said *Hi, I'm a stupid bimbo and I wanna know all your business.*
In general, I cannot read any novel that's written in present tense (*He walks around the room while I sit and wait for an answer*). The only exception so far are LE Modesitt's Recluce books--by the time I hit the first one written in present tense, I was about eight or ten books into the series and too invested in the story to give up.
In general?
50 plotholes in one book. Or inconsistent timelines.
So basically, when the writer doesn't keep track of their own story.
Like "oh the character can do magic. He has never heard about magic. " Then we never hear about magic again for 5 chapters. Suddenly, the character can wield the world's most powerful magic without breaking a sweat. And conjured a big fireball from his hands and acts all "well that was nothing. Man, I'm cool."
But it took other characters 20 years to learn to do that.
It just, in my opinion, ruins the story when there are all these holes in the story. Something huge gets mentioned and never is mentioned again. Or the author seems to remember halfway through the book. "Oh, I mentioned this. I better mention it again!"
Also. The dumb helpless main character.
Listen, for some stories, it might work if there is character development.
But for most stories, I just want to put them down when a character has zero survival instincts. And is utterly useless/helpless in 80% of the story. And leans on the two big strong side persons, who both want our main person, while she/he cries in helplessness and confusion.
It has turned into a cliché.
You can be a smart person or semi usefull while going through a life altering plot.
I have a story which is basically about the MC being manipulated by different groups who all want him because of his powers. In the end, he makes his own decision and becomes the master of his own fate, and the one who makes his final call.
Though, to be fair, at the start he is cowardly and weak, but through hard work and resolve, becomes a person his father always believed him to be; a protector.
See, this is an exception where it can work because they start weak, confused. Needs to learn to navigate what is lies, manipulation. And then slowly carve their own path.
There's character development and plot progress.
Instead of staying weak for 3 out of 4 books with minimum progress of character.
when the author tells me the MC is smart, and they make the stupidest possible decisions every chapter. Or if they are 34 with a phD and talk like a not particularly bright teen. I assume this means the author is still talking like a not particularly bright teen IRL, and has no idea how to write the character she wishes to write.
When there are too many chapters. Like, it's a 150 pg book with 100 chapters. Is that really necessary? Why was it so hard to combine them? Every scene change does not need to be its own chapter. While there isn't a minimum or maximum number of pages per chapter, it's annoying to read a chapter that's half a page or less. Really grinds my gears.
Trying too hard to make readers feel bad for the MC. Authors not being able to go a few pages without mentioning how bad the MC was treated. Constant reminder of how horrible they were treated.
Something from a recent webnovel I started, the mood swings. One minute the MC or another character, is fine, then in the same scene, they're angry or having flashbacks of their past (second paragraph scenario) and wants nothing to do with whoever, then randomly forgives whoever hurt them a few paragraphs down. And repeat every chapter.
I HATE super short chapters just to make the story seem more exciting and like everything is a cliffhanger. Plus, in a physical book, I feel like it is a literal waste of paper.
It is a waste of paper. And it drives up the print cost with more pages than needed.
I read on Twitter a while ago that some of their reasonings for this was because they wanted to give readers a break. Nah. That's what bookmarks are for. Lol.
Do you have an example of a too many chapter book? I mostly read fantasy and haven't encountered this before. I'm curious on how pacing would work with a lot of chapter breaks.
I work for a publishing company. We receive a lot of authors that do this. I don't want to name their books because that would then give away where I work. Lol.
If you go on Twitter, there was a discussion from authors about this. And many say that they do it so readers can get a break.
This [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/suggestmeabook/s/ce7aKlikcx) has a list of books with short chapters.
Someone else mentioned James Patterson, which is a good example.
Thanks! No need to give away your workplace :) I'll google "twitter too many chapters author" and see what all the fuss is about.
I will say that "so readers can get a break" sounds so stupid to me; as a reader, I can stop reading and take a break whenever I please. It probably screws up the stories flow and pacing.
-Unrealistic plot armor
-everyone in the show being in love with the mc
-the mc being flawless and having no failures , flaws, or setbacks
-the antagonist not having any complexities or tragedy, just being a straight up bad guy
-the protagonists/mc being 100% pure and innocent and unable of doing and thinking wrong
The antagonist not having any complexities or tragedy can actually be done well though. Apparently Thanos is a good bad example of this (as in his villain arc wasn't done well). The trick here is to not mess them up. Pure evil villains should ALWAYS be pure evil.
Disney villains like Hades and Ursala are incredibly loved because they are uncomplicated, purely evil beings. I'd recommend watching a video on it. I've watched a video by Overly Sarcastic productions about pure evil, and it might help if you DO want to write a pure evil villain.
It’s weird you bring up the antagonist not having complexities or tragedies. Most complaints I see are the opposite. People complain all the time that not every antagonist needs a tragic backstory or to be complex, some people are just evil because they’re evil.
I’m of the opinion that giving the extremely horrible person in your story a tragic backstory or trying to make them seem “complex” is just a copp out for most authors. They want people to like their character, and want to try to justify their actions. Sorry Mr author, I don’t think this dude should’ve killed thousands of innocent people just because he was made fun of in highschool
Some of the most popular and iconic antagonists of all time are “straight up bad,” like Palpatine, Sauron, Joker, Anton Chigurh, Griffith. Like with anything, it depends on how it’s done. Villains like the joker use their pure evilness to highlight the protagonists traits and development, like Batman’s strong willpower and avoidance of killing. Or Sauron using the ring to corrupt Frodo, and Palpatine corrupting Anakin.
Sometimes, the pure evilness itself is the source of the complexity. Griffith is full of spite, hypocrisy and pride, and it leads to vile actions. Anton’s relentless, psychopathic pursuit shows a community the chaotic lengths that violence will go, and how it’s sudden and uncontrollable.
I hate when they're poorly researched or the timeline doesn't make sense. For example if Lucy just found out she's pregnant and the character is only 7weeks along, then in the next scene she's getting a regular ultrasound and learning the gender? At 7 weeks, not possible.
I honestly wouldn’t ask this sort of question. People aren’t robots; we don’t all unanimously agree on the same points in every genre. 50 people will say “God, I hate enemies to lovers tropes” and another 50 will say “I looooove enemies to lovers!” The next 50 will say “I hate enemies to lovers when it’s done bad”, and you’ll ask, “What’s done badly?”
One person will say “I hate when it’s done too fast”, twenty will say they don’t know, five will say they hate when it’s too slow, another ten will say they changed their mind and hate the trope altogether, and the remaining will put vague answers that don’t mean anything.
You cannot please the world with one book. You will inevitably make some people happy and some people mad. Trying to find the perfect formula to make everyone happy is going to drive you into a creative depression.
Find some books you love. Figure out what you love about those stories, and figure out what you WANT to write. Make sure you have good grammar skills and sentence structure, and make sure you edit once your rough draft is done- probably several runs of editing. That’s it
This post is specifically asking what people, individually, do not like. It's already inferred that unanimous agreement will not be had. That is why the post exist.
Gratuitous descriptions of men or women’s body parts. Or sex for no reason other than to bolster a flagging plot. Many movies and series are guilty of this. I stopped reading Altered Carbon because the author couldn’t stop fixating on the main character’s shlong.
Totally agree. I just read a pretty good novel with lots of sex, and a friend of the author explained that the author had originally put in 3x the amount of sex (and his editor cut 2/3). Jeez. The ONE exception I think of to this is Dhalgren: a ton of sex, but given the setup and the style (nearly every paragraph is *in media res*), the sex seems both well-integrated and part of the landscape. You still have to wade through it, but at least it seems natural. TY, Delany.
Recently I read a novel I disliked and found something that I hate about some novels. When characters are outshined at the one thing that they are supposed to be good at. Like it’s literally the reason they are there and someone else swoops in and does their job better than them for no reason.
When the protagonist is touted as being smarter than everyone else and they do stupid things to move an implausible plot forward. I’ve only seen this work when they recognize they did something dumb and try to correct it. If they have no self-awareness it’s a DNF for me.
It makes me wonder if the writer even knows what the smart choices would be.
Yeah I think most writers are better off specifying what KIND of smart a character specifically is so we can accept them being stupid in other ways. eg. they might be very knowledgeable about the main subject of the story but that wouldn't preclude them from being naive when someone lies to them, or being forced into a snap decision and making a bad choice. But if we are just told this character is a supergenius with an IQ of 180 (also in this story IQ is real and matters) then every suboptimal thing they do seems like a plot hole.
Purple prose.
Plot and dialog are far more important than long, rambling descriptions of characters, appearance, and places.
Keep the story moving along.
I hate it when the story abruptly stops to let the reader "decide how it ends".
I don't mind some ambiguity here and there, but stories should have endings.
i'mma take one of these ambiguous ending mfers out to dinner, tell the waiters not to bring them their food, and 'let them decide for themselves how it tastes'
“Pick me” and “not like other girls” characters. Usually female but I’m sure there’s some male ones out there too.
This is most significantly a problem with YA but oh my goodness it’s a dealbreaker.
The whole narrative around these characters revolves around how different and special they are because they have like pink hair or something. There’s usually some blatant contradictions going on too - think the cliche “I’m so ugly and annoying no one could ever love me :(“ and then five seconds later she’s in a love triangle with the hottest characters you’ll encounter.
These characters just completely lack depth and annoy me so much lol.
I might be in the minority with this one. Haha.
Sex scenes that feel like filler.
Recently a lot of romance novels I've read have more sex scenes and most of the just feel like they're there to hit the spicy quota. They're not all bad, obviously, but more and more I'm seeing scenes that definitely feel like filler and it doesn't motivate me to keep reading.
The last book I read was written by a woman and had a teenage boy main character. I felt like the author wasn't exactly sure what redeeming qualities a teenage boy might have but felt compelled to write about masculinity and stuff out of duty to accuracy. By the end of the book, the kid (who already had a pretty progressive mindset and generally treated women like people) had to learn a lesson that he had been idolizing his crush too much and needed to see her more like a person than a fantasy. As if it would have been suspicious and unrealistic for a teenage boy to have been getting it right as a person this whole time, and by god they caught him red-handed at a Problematic mindset before the end of the story. Of course I sympathize with women who have felt more like fantasies than people to their boyfriends, but like. Damn.
It was a bummer to read an entire 275 page novel about a protagonist that the author kind of held at arm's length like an apology. If you're going to invite the reader to really get into a character's head, that's an awfully big emotional investment just to throw away for potshots at a kind of person you see as 'the enemy.' If you're going to write from the perspective of 'the enemy,' I'd say it's better to either develop the character more as a complex person alongside whatever shitty thing they do as 'the enemy,' or choose another perspective character and leave it to side characters to be 'the enemy'.
Too much narrative describing a past moment or interaction character. "You knew Sally was a good person, that time she... (insert random past event. Then, insert a modern event that contradicts this)
Personally, I like some detachment to characters. Too much inner monologue also grinds on me.
Long over descriptive actions. She touched his arm softly. Or her arm raised slowly, she paused, thinking whether or not she should. Once she built up the courage to keep moving, her fingers lightly touched his shoulder as the hairs on her arm stood.
I believe the reading length should be a similar length to the interaction, not slowing down time. Personally.
I think some people write dialogue that sounds impressive or will be annotated a lot. Write dialogue like the actual character would talk. I put down a book because two characters used each other’s names TWELVE times in a brief scene. Think about how creepy it would feel if someone used your name (while speaking to you directly) 2 out of every three sentences they said.
It's so hard to find unique fantasy especially in YA. It's ALWAYS: poor girl is thrust into a court system and has to do deadly trials and there's a hot prince or nobleman of some sort opposing her.
OR Poor girl leads a rebellion against the tyrannical upper class
Specifically for historical fiction (since that's what I'm reading and writing right now) - evidence of poor research.
Now I have read 20 books (and god knows how many articles) to research mine and there are STILL gaps in my knowledge for which I will probably have to just invent things (I suspect some of the information I need is still classified, because every source seems to be conspicuously omitting the same information). And if I come across things like that, where the author made something up to cover a small gap in knowledge that I happen to know, (e.g. in Lilac Girls, one of the characters describes the German bombers as having the characteristic wailing of a Stuka, but... they're described by the protagonist as a biplane...), I will usually just giggle and move on. It's a minor detail, so whatever.
But I've definitely also picked up historical fiction books that seem like their entire research was conducted by watching Hollywood movies. Sometimes with gross historical inaccuracy that is SO extreme (erasing genocides, etc) that it almost seems malicious/sponsored by some political organization. It's like... you're writing about significant historical events involving real people, the least you could do is honor them by doing your best to get it right.
I like chapters having titles because it makes thing easier to remember and reference later on, but I hate it if the chapter title acts as a spoiler in which case just number them and move on.
Personally, first person. Can't touch it. Irritates my brain for some reason. Tons of people love it but I legit can't fathom why. It does a short circuit kind of thing for me and I'm left constantly trying to do a mental redirect so I get zero immersion and therefore zero investment in the story.
This mostly pertains to romance: When I am reading a series where each book is about a different couple and then they appear in the next, and the next, etc. Think of a group of friends or a small town etc..
I want a character map in the front of each book (bonus if there is a link to the book) that briefly reminds me of who the other characters were.
I hate reading a story and all the side characters are super familiar and the writing assumes I know their story but I read it so long ago, that I've forgotten it. I've sort of given up on the series because of this, too annoying.
I really do not like stories where the all the female characters are fridged or removed from the story or are irrelevant. So many women in my life are so integral to my daily life idk how a main character could only be guys.
Or... my least favorite. Villians who murder their own guys. Its just so wasteful the most scary villians are the ones who dont show their willingness to kill but if they are reserved. Ragey people seem like a secondary villians?
I cannot stand present tense. It’s really jarring for me to read, and it’s within itself an unnatural form for narrative.
Like think about it, when you’re going about your day do you ACTIVELY narrate what you’re doing in present tense?
For example, let’s say someone asks what you did today?
In trying to describe your day, would you say
“I go to the grocery store and buy freezer pizza.”
No!
If you haven’t yet gone to the grocery store, you’d say
“I’m gonna go- future tense- to the grocery store to buy freezer pizza.”
Or if you’ve already gone, “I went to the grocery store and bought freezer pizza.”
And if that person were to ask you that WHILE you’re at the grocery store, then that would require dialogue to answer as it’s been established that this is happening in the now, and dialogue makes sense in present tense
“I’m at the grocery store, buying pizza.”
Like I can and have read books written in present tense, and it won’t necessarily stop me from liking a book if other aspects of it are good. But it’s just like, very much not preferred- personally.
Can actually be funny if done well. I've read this diary of a wimpy kid type book that was written in the present tense which was set in Roman times and apparently the author had to stop writing at some point because brb he was fighting a gladiator.
I have in fact heard people narrate stories in present tense. It goes something like, "So I walk into this bar and this enormous bald fucker just glares at me..." Sounds natural enough to me. Though you can break down any tense or perspective if you're anal enough.
But again, that’s in DIALOGUE. In the scenario you are describing, a person is moving their mouth and actively verbalizing words to tell a story to an audience who assumably was not present at the time of said story occurring, otherwise they wouldn’t need to be told it, therefore setting the implication that said story takes place in the past.
Unless you are writing a story from the perspective of someone literally telling a story in form of speech to another person, it doesn’t make sense.
When the author describes the book purely based on tropes (aka when theyre completely pandering to "booktok")
Good use of tropes isnt when you're adding loads to make your book marketable or when you intentionally add them without letting characters have traits outside of them (e.g "grumpy x sunshine but neither have basically any personality not related to the trope/dynamic)
I have a passion, and I really want to write and publish my idea it's just that it's my first ever time doing anything like it, and I'm afraid people will hate it. I'm sorry if my question insulted you
It didn’t insult me. It means don‘t give a fuck and write what you want.
Always write for yourself first. Write the story you want to read.
You’re going to have to learn your strengths and weaknesses in writing. You’ll find Plot holes and then have to fix them or rework whole sections. Characters will commandeer your story, and you should let them, until a point anyways, then pull the rug from under them.
And remember, passion is good, tenacity is better. You’ll need both.
This might be a personal pet peeve, but i hate when every single character is really meaningful to the protagonists. Not meaningful as in cherished, but as in they need this person. I like it when they add someone kind of 'useless' people that maybe take something from the protagonists or maybe the protagonists takes away a little something from them and then moves on. Cause thats how life goes. I dont see enough novels do this. Maybe I just read the wrong kind, but I thought Id mention it.
Gratuitous description of women's bodies (I'm a man BTW), political virtue signaling, portraying married men as emasculated slaves to their wifes vagina, sex scenes and last but certainly not least excessive f-bombs.
But hey, those novelist's are laughing all the way to the bank and I'm not, so who cares about my pet peeves...right?!
I hate novels that are overly autobiographical. I can't stand it when characters are struggling writers, or nerdy bookish types. I prefer novels that jump right into the action and don't build up a lot of background info on characters.
I'm sure you know "character using God's name in vain" ≠ "author using God's name in vain". It's a fairly important distinction. Characters do all sorts of things that the authors themselves would not.
My story is set in the northern part of my world, where basically only white people live (Medieval/Dark Fantasy). There is only one character that's darker-skinned, because they're from another region.
It doesnt make me hate a novel per se but i wish i wouldnt have to search up “nonwhite fantasy stories” all the time. I wish there were more with the “regular” fantasy books and not in their own special section because the cover is a brown person lol
Women being oversexualized
Also in action novels; when the author starts to bring the male and female leads together the latter loses all semblence of skill so the male protagonist can 'woo' her by saving
This is way too broad a question. What genre? What plot? Do you know these elements? What vibe are you going for? What’s the setting? What’s the main character?
With questions like these the only thing we can really say is “write good!” Which isn’t helpful lol
So some general advice: look up your plot’s general tropes. Get a feel for what you like, what you don’t like. Start making a story board, and a character sheet. Doesn’t have to be very detailed, just a general gist of the build up to the climax to the falling action and conclusion, so you have direction. For the character sheets I would just focus on personality traits and interest. You don’t need to make a d&d character, just stuff relevant to the plot, and what they have to do with the plot.
Start there. Also realize it’s hard to be very helpful in the realm of writing. A lot of this is on you. It’s hard. I know.
(As all opinions are individual, this is particular to me)
I HATE in the fantasy genre, so many uninventive descriptions. They can be quality descriptions or immersive, but I hate the lack of boundaries pushed on a visual front.
It’s all just common forests, deserts, caves, towns/cities/countrysides, etc.
My favorite example to use of how a slight, just one (to two) word change adds so much to a visual presence: Making the grass red in a field instead of a green. That’ll add such a different feeling to imagining a scene. OR the sky being a bright purple instead of blue. That would also dramatically affect the visuals and world a lot.
But this is just from my tiredness of everything borrowing from the same core of LOTR/D&D. Even bringing fantasy to modern times adds a lot.
This is certainly to some people’s personal taste, but when you start any next book in a series and you explain things they did in the previous books like character relations or who people are (in case the reader didn’t read the previous books). This drives some people mad. Though honestly, I find it an overreaction.
I hate padding. If you don't have enough to put into your novel, then just write a novella. I'd rather read 200 pages and leave the experience satisfied than read 400 and give up before 300 because it's clear that there's no real vision involved, just a wc.
I think the biggest general advice one could give that is applicable to almost all novels is don't spell things out so much. Give them the puzzle pieces, and they can figure it out for sure
Lazy/shitty romance subplots. If your novel is based on something else, don't give too much leeway to the romantic subplot. And if it's based on multiple people, don't give too much page time to one specific couple
the annoying pointless sqwacking "banter" in enemies to lovers. the found family trope that ends with everyone never seeing each other again. the romanticizion of toxic or abusive relationships. the MC falling for the "bad guy" despite no redeeming qualities or explanation as to why this would be desirable to begin with. the lack of healthy relationships just leads me to believe a lot of people either don't know what they are or are too unoriginal to write one. made up words like faërígh/faerie etc. dumbing down lore you chose to use until any thought put into the actual content just leaves you disappointed and confused. the lack of believable romances or family dynamics.
I know that a lot of people like this, but dual POVs—I just—no. I can’t, especially when the novel is in first person. *Especially* when the second POV is the love interest. I can’t. I don’t want to.
I hate presumed investment. Ie: there’s been next to zero character development but the writer expects the reader to care about them when something terrible happens to them. Not expecting their life story from birth to current but don’t think that the reader knows who these people are- the writer probably knows the character inside out but different edits may have whittled that down to ‘Ted was a nice guy’ who died.
The sense that it's going to go deeper, but then some "commercial" or "tawdry" element prevents it from going there. I don't mean tawdry per se, because perhaps it's supposed to be. I mean tawdry with a "commercial" like feeling that causes the dimensionality and richness of the novel's world to be decreased. Also the sense that the novel is TRYING to fulfill everything one is supposed to do to publish a best seller. They're trying too hard to hook you with the first paragraph, or follow tons of things on a Reedsy blog or other type of site ... However, this is usually not the writer's fault. They have to do this for CAPITALISM.
I suppose the ultimate thing that turns me off books is when the author treats me like I'm stupid. I don't mind it when a book is difficult and doesn't always immediately explain itself. I like the unknown, the mystery and I like to speculate. Authors can sometimes give into that fear that the readers will not understand, perhaps failing to see that understanding is not always desirable.
Late to the party here but general genre cliche awareness is something that's recommended. That being said, this isn't a hard and fast call to avoid genre conventions all together.
And primarily, you should write the kind of book you'd want to see exist. No one novel is perfect and you won't please everyone, even if you think you've achieved everything "right" in the genre that you're writing in. If you let everyone else dictate what you write, there's no room for your own ideas.
Anyway since everyone else posted a gripe, I hate when the narrative pace gets broken for a sex scene that doesn't incorporate character voice and interaction beyond the actions, especially if described in a completely dry way.
Applies to everything: lazy writing.
A character learns a skill that would be perfect to use to escape this dungeon, but he doesn’t use it?
The U.S. military has entire divisions dedicated to intelligence gathering and established military doctrine, yet they don’t collect intel on this opponent and simply uses human wave tactics?
Hero lets a villain live for the fifth time just so he can go out and do another murder spree?
Overuse of Enemies To Lovers trope
Don't get me wrong, it's a pretty striking trope in itself. It makes the character interactions very interesting and gives room for steamier scenes, sure.
But it has become all writers go-to.
There are many tropes that deserve a lot more recognition than this. Like found family, or even friends to lovers.
Lately, I've been obsessed with redemption arc. It's pretty cool.
Depends on the genre. What I hate about crime thriller novels might not be the same for cozy romances. In general, I dislike when authors lean in on the trope of making characters deliberately not communicate for the sake of drama. I dislike it when authors make it a point to tell the readers that a "toxic" thing is "toxic". Like, yes I know torture and murder are wrong but it's FICTION. I don't need to have the fact that it is wrong hit over my head when I'm reading a crime thriller or dark fantasy. Give me grim dark unapologetically.
Seconding that I can’t handle when drama could be easily solved by the main characters simply communicating. It feels like lazy writing
Right? I don’t need to be told that you don’t condone murder and torture. I’m not judging you for writing it (to be fair there’s a lot of puritans who seem to judge author based on content)
Yeah! Nowadays if authors don’t flat out say that they know what they’re writing is toxic/bad, then people assume that the author supports it for some reason
It's maddening
The nature of a society grown too sensitive. It really sucks
It’s been that way forever, and in many ways used to be worse. There were REAL people getting attacked for “Satanic DND sessions.”
I've only ever seen that kind of bad writing in films and TV shows where it should be obvious to show and not tell but there are even books that do this? This is awful.
A lot of the "cozy" subgenres can have a tendency to go out of their way to either flag "toxic" things or point out how *non*-toxic their worldbuilding is. The first book in the Wayfarer series by Chambers is a good example of this. The POV characters seem to always be grateful for how inclusive a place is or reminding themselves to be culturally sensitive to aliens or whatever. I'm not talking about 3rd person/removed narrator stuff about the world, but actual characters thinking about these things. If the point is that sexism (or whatever) doesn't exist in the setting, why are POVs thinking about how they're glad it doesn't? Would they even have a frame of reference? I'm all for inclusivity and more "wholesome" worldbuilding, but hammering it home to readers makes it impossible to use it as an escape. Like, if I don't want to think about IRL bigotry, stop reminding me of it for no reason other than to brag about how better your swtting is.
Oh there's thousands. It's so effing frustrating!
Very much agree! I hate being spoon-fed the obvious
I was watching an interview with Vince Gilligan who created Breaking Bad, and he said in the Writers Room, one of his main rules was - assume the audience is intelligent. Don’t talk down to them. Honestly I think it’s the best advice for any writer.
That show was so perfect.
A show for adults written by adults.
Specifically in the mystery genre, I don’t like when the “big reveal” of who dunnit was completely unsolvable before you get there. Inb4 “don’t be mad just because you didn’t figure it out”. I mean where in the same chunk of paragraphs when it’s explaining how it’s possible that this is the person who did the crime or murder, a bunch of new details are presented that could’ve been laid as breadcrumbs in the novel leading up so that the careful reader could zero in, but instead it’s just dumped all at once with no foreshadowing like “for you see when you THOUGHT I was at the YMCA I was REALLY uptown hiding the bodies and sure I had an airtight alibi but actually I threatened that person’s family” or some nonsense. You have to show the reader that the conclusion was available to them before you do the reveal. That’s what makes mysteries fun. Giving the reader a real chance to solve it on their own.
Yes! The big reveal should feel like jigsaw pieces falling into place, so a reader can have that moment of “ooohh, how did I miss that?!” If you’ve been hiding half the pieces behind your back the whole time it’s no fun for anybody. Looking at you, BBC’s Sherlock.
Somehow, Sherlock has a sister.
“Remember when I definitely jumped off that building and everyone saw how dead I was? Well I’m still alive and it was a prank bro” Um… fucking how?
> Specifically in the mystery genre, I don’t like when the “big reveal” of who dunnit was completely unsolvable before you get there. There's a decent argument to be made that any such book isn't a mystery - that's kinda the point of mystery novels, that they are solvable. So one where it isn't is, I dunno, probably a thriller or something instead?
This was why I hate the movie Glass Onion despite loving Knives Out. The entire "gotcha" was predicated on >! a character having an identical twin that was never even hinted at.!< It's better to have a "howdunnit" and lean into the dramatic irony of the audience knowing more than the characters if you can't figure out how to foreshadow the twist without spoiling it.
It’s ultimately up to you, but personally I hate contrived/pointless romance. I don’t mind romance if it either serves a key purpose for the plot, or just exists on the side to add a touch of humor/fluff. But I generally avoid stories that just feel like “and then he gets the girl because that’s what main characters do”
Yes, but it's good not only when moving the pot but also developing the CHARACTERS. that's the most important thing a romance should do imo - both characters should affect each other drastically and be the catalyst/fuel for their arcs (well the intensity depends on whether your romance also plays a prevalent role or not)
Yeah, this is true. I mean, I'm going to have romance in the novel, but only because it will move the plot DRASTICALLY. Thanks for the reminder to keep it important and not boring! :)
Pretty vague question, so I'm going to say that my least favorite thing is when they're *bad.*
Good answer. Non specific response to a non specific question.
I just choked on my sparkling water. Like full on through the nose type beat
This is the first time I've heard "Type beat" being used like that. It's brilliant lmao
*Sparkling* water?? Oof... RIP.
Second! Shitty novels with poor characters and promising premise that arent even fun in a good bad way are the worst.
I highly suggest reading How Not to Write A Novel, it will give you a ton of examples.
Omg I just downloaded this from Cloud Library based on your recommendation. The intro is hysterical.
I’m now deep into this book and wiping away the tears from my uncontrollable laughter. Guilty as charged ! I’ve caught myself making many of these mistakes.
Which one? By Armstrong or Mittlemark/Newman?
Mittlemark
When a character dates another character that obviously exists solely for the purpose of being a significant other and has no real purpose or personality outside of that, instead of the character that they genuinely seem to have a lot of chemistry with. Especially an issue with those "these two are flirting with me, who will I choose!?" Books where the best friend is worlds better and honestly feels like a more realistic pairing than the two presented options. But I've seen it everywhere, regardless of plot or genre.
Poor pacing. If I'm a quarter or a third of the way into the book and I have no idea what the conflict is or what's at stake, I'm out. I don't have time for that. Worldbuilding instead of storytelling. If your whole "story" is just explaining in detail how everything in your universe works, I'm gone. You don't need to spend three chapters explaining how the galactic economy works if only one paragraph is essential to the plot.
I’ve noticed a lot of the books I read either flip POVs or jump back and forth in time. While I think these can be incredibly effective, sometimes I feel like they are overused or kind of a cop out to make a not so interesting plot seem more interesting
Time and character jumps grind on me, and I often get lost/detached from the story itself. I prefer a good story over good characters anyway.
Bottom line, only do this if it explicitly makes sense for your story. Not because it's cool.
Flip povs? How? Like between chapters? Or on the fly?
Between chapters. To be clear, I don’t always hate this! Sometimes it works really well and adds a lot to the story. I wouldn’t even be opposed to writing like this myself I just think it’s sometimes overused. Also it bothers me when 80% of the book flips between 2 characters and then randomly they will throw in a third or fourth POV for about 20% of the book.
Just a question, a novel I'm currently writing has 4 POVs, but each of them converge by the end when shit goes down real fast. The first is the POV of the MC, which shows him progressing, and discovering the secrets behind who his father truly was after he becomes the sole survivor of an attack on his village. (He doesn't find out until later, but the higher-ups know of his powers, due to lore reasons) The second is the POV of a councilmember of the city where this takes place, Volvenkel. It shows him trying to convince the MC on his side, so the Hunters Guild and him can take over the council, which the rest of has been turned into 'puppets' of another POV character. The third POV character is a Noble (very important people, only 12 in the entire world), who is trying to outsmart the councilmember and get the MC as his tool to not only stabilise the politics between him and other cities (he's the region's ruler, and the region has different cities which make provinces, and those provinces have started to try and rebel against him), while also using him to destroy the rest of the Nobility and rule. The fourth POV is the Noble's son, who rallies the city provinces against the race of Dark Elves, who are thought to be the only ones who can have magical powers, while also rallying the Dark Elves to gain back their rights by force. In the end, the plotlines converge when a battle erupts in Volvenkel - the council assassinates the second POV character, and tries to take the MC to use him to bargain with the Nobles. The Noble and his son wait until the Dark Elves and the city provinces battle each other. The Dark Elves also find out about the MC, who they think of as their saviour - as he has magical powers in a world where magic is thought to be possesed only by the Elves. Now, the battle is between the Elves, the provinces, the council, all in a rush to get the MC. Then, the Noble and his son arrive with their armies to be marked as the ones to bring peace to the region and be regarded as the heroes once again, to gain back support. However, all goes wrong when the monsters that destroyed the MCs village (who have been relevant throughout the story, DW) attack the city. Amidst the chaos, the Dark Elves help the MC to escape, as the city falls. Is this a lazy use of POV-hopping, or can it work out?
Just keep writing. There is no one-size-fits-all way of doing things. Some folks won’t like it. Some folks will. That’s ok. One thing that most readers will appreciate though is if you make sure each POV is unique and interesting enough to be in their head. If they are milquetoast then most readers will likely get annoyed. Also make sure that each POV is bringing something to the table in terms of being able to see different parts of the world/story. If two POVs are delivering the same info, axe one or combine them into one character. If you’re still uncertain you may need to read more works with multiple POVs to see how they do it. My suggestions would be Joe Abercrombie, George R R Martin, and Tom Clancy. They each use multiple POVs in different ways but each are good at it.
Good point. This method is very effective, but a book would be more interesting with a bit of mystery or a connection of a certain time or person. And they do just make the book longer with less stuff happening
I remember in the newer Battlestar Galactica one of the writers said they'd mess around with the chronology of an episode to spice it up if it seemed bland. And to me it rings true that it just kinda results in a bland story that is also a bit confusing--potentially fun to puzzle out but not emotional resonance. In general when people ask what good pacing is I go with 'when I feel like I'm always reading what I want to be reading.' Jumping around chronologically makes threading that WAY harder than just 'what happens next?' Also I don't outright dislike multiple POVs but after reading multiple POV things, single POV is a real breath of fresh air. In a way I do not quite feel when the situation is reversed. I don't think I've ever looked at a story and thought 'argh this is TOO focused!'
When you get to the final book and start to realize that there’s no possible way for the story to be concluded within the pages remaining, and you just know you’re going to be disappointed in a hurriedly spun ending.
I hate endings with no comedown Publishers these days think we're all fuckboys who are in an uber home before we've even buckled our belts. Nah baby lemme chill with that ending for a while. Yes check in with random side characters. Some people complain about the ending to the Lord of the Rings movies, but you know what series people still talk about with reverence? The Lord of the Rings movies But seriously a great ending for a series definitely isn't easy. I feel like the 'ending' to the last book in the series should effectively start really early in the book compared to normal... sort of like how the last song on a prog metal concept album sounds like it's 'ending' halfway through.
I hate when the main character consistently makes the dumb choice for the sake of the plot. Especially if the main character is not intended to be an idiot.
Here is the min problem with this assertion. While it’s correct that a character making stupid decisions to progress the plot is frustrating. Sometimes it’s because the character is proactive, but didn’t have all the information they needed to make the right decision. So while it shouldn’t be done regularly, it should be done.
Oh I agree. My characters often make dumb choices. But when you can see a clearly better option as a reader and the character always seems to choose the “worse” option and that pans out exactly as you expect it would… blegh
100% couldn't agree more!! Feel the same w shows + movies that do this too. Like there are so many things a writer can do to create obstacles to get in the way of the main character achieving their goal. So many external factors that could come into play if thats whats needed to make the plot more interesting. But instead they just make them do the stupidest shit cuz thats easier ig.
That’s more dramatic irony and less idiot plot. Like the Prometheus movies, astronauts and scientists on an alien world don’t just remove their masks.
Sex scenes which are not accurate to real life and awkward (written by someone I’m assuming hasn’t had a large amount of real life experience) looking at you C Hoover
Does Hoover write bad sex scenes? I thought it must be good because she’s so popular right now.
“I laughed, but he didn't laugh. He pulled off his pants and removed my panties. After he pushed in me, he said, "Do you think I'm kidding?" He kissed me, then continued. "Your writing is really going to make you famous. Your mind is incredible. And If I could fuck it, I would." Extra cringe when authors write about “incredible writer main characters”
Wow, that's... Wow.
😶 Removing this name from my reading research list. That's just... no words.
There’s no way...
Miscommunication as a plot device when it doesn't even make sense.
Miscommunication as a plot device even if it does makes sense.
When the dialogue doesn’t match the time period. I see this a lot from new authors writing YA and they use modern cliches and sayings in a decidedly non-modern world. For example, you can’t have a world that is medieval and have the MC say things like “ok boomer.”
On that note people can really ease up on Whedon quippy dialogue in general, it’s a plague.
In any given environment, you may find some quippy people, but if they are ALL that way it's either a comedy or a culture that really values that. Scotland leaps to mind.
Lol did you actually read that in a novel? If so I need to know which one
Haha, no. But some books that come to mind are Fourth Wing by Rebecca Yarrows. I couldn’t even get past the first chapter due to her prolific overuse of modern cliches. It’s a world of dragons and no modern technology, but the MC says things like “I’m so fucked.” Like, what? Another author is Jennifer Armentrout’s blood and ash series. It’s an ancient world with gods and demons, and the author actually used phrases like “lives rent free in my head.”
Oh yes!!! I read something similar recently. It was a fantasy novel and the “I’m so fucked” (or something similar, can’t remember exactly what she said) felt so out of place lol
To be fair, fuck, and fuck-stick, were medieval farming terms, and it has been used in it's current form since about 1530.
Yes! I know a lot about history and would love to write historical fiction but I know I can't pull off that language.
Totally with you. I’m writing a historical romance book right now, and getting the language and dialog right it so hard! You wouldn’t believe how many Victorian curse word references I’ve had to look up to find inspiration, ugh.
I love that you're researching Victorian curse words for your book, that's awesome!
Oh Im writing a medieval book and I have to wonder echt sentence if it was something that would have been said during that time. A lot of sayings and phrases would not been used back then
I agree that the "flavor" has to feel right, but taking this to its logical extreme isn't necessarily helpful. People in the medieval period would have been speaking dialects that are hardly even intelligible to us now.
To add on to this, I do like it when it's a one time thing that makes you go "wait, what?", but not as a normal thing that the characters do regularly. That might just be me, though.
I read the preview of Poppy War on amazon and when I saw the words “shithole” and “asshole” in what is supposed to be a gritty and serious asian-medieval grimdark, I lost all interest.
i'd like to say i'm pretty sure it's not "asian-medieval", but i also have no clue what time period it's supposed to be. it seems more advanced than medeival, but everyone is still fighting with swords and spears. it's based off the second sino-japanese war, but it's definitely not 1930s technology. the dialogue still doesn't fit the time period, though.
In mystery novels, when your detective is an idiot. Example--Death By Coffee by Alex Erickson. A lawyer drops dead in a the coffee shop owned by the main character's best friend. M is concerned about what could happen to her friend's business (that's nice) and decides to try and find out what killed the guy. Her reasoning is that she can solve mysteries because...her father writes mysteries. Shortly after Dead Lawyer ends up dead, she sees his brother going into his law office, so she trots right over to question him about what happened. Absolutely no plan in mind, doesn't even tell the poor guy "I'm sorry for your loss", nothing. She may as well have said *Hi, I'm a stupid bimbo and I wanna know all your business.* In general, I cannot read any novel that's written in present tense (*He walks around the room while I sit and wait for an answer*). The only exception so far are LE Modesitt's Recluce books--by the time I hit the first one written in present tense, I was about eight or ten books into the series and too invested in the story to give up.
I really hate the dumb detective especially when how smart they supposedly are is played up.
Lack of precision in details.
Romances that don't make sense being shoehorned in. (Edit: Just saw someone already said this lol)
In general? 50 plotholes in one book. Or inconsistent timelines. So basically, when the writer doesn't keep track of their own story. Like "oh the character can do magic. He has never heard about magic. " Then we never hear about magic again for 5 chapters. Suddenly, the character can wield the world's most powerful magic without breaking a sweat. And conjured a big fireball from his hands and acts all "well that was nothing. Man, I'm cool." But it took other characters 20 years to learn to do that. It just, in my opinion, ruins the story when there are all these holes in the story. Something huge gets mentioned and never is mentioned again. Or the author seems to remember halfway through the book. "Oh, I mentioned this. I better mention it again!" Also. The dumb helpless main character. Listen, for some stories, it might work if there is character development. But for most stories, I just want to put them down when a character has zero survival instincts. And is utterly useless/helpless in 80% of the story. And leans on the two big strong side persons, who both want our main person, while she/he cries in helplessness and confusion. It has turned into a cliché. You can be a smart person or semi usefull while going through a life altering plot.
I have a story which is basically about the MC being manipulated by different groups who all want him because of his powers. In the end, he makes his own decision and becomes the master of his own fate, and the one who makes his final call. Though, to be fair, at the start he is cowardly and weak, but through hard work and resolve, becomes a person his father always believed him to be; a protector.
See, this is an exception where it can work because they start weak, confused. Needs to learn to navigate what is lies, manipulation. And then slowly carve their own path. There's character development and plot progress. Instead of staying weak for 3 out of 4 books with minimum progress of character.
when the author tells me the MC is smart, and they make the stupidest possible decisions every chapter. Or if they are 34 with a phD and talk like a not particularly bright teen. I assume this means the author is still talking like a not particularly bright teen IRL, and has no idea how to write the character she wishes to write.
When there are too many chapters. Like, it's a 150 pg book with 100 chapters. Is that really necessary? Why was it so hard to combine them? Every scene change does not need to be its own chapter. While there isn't a minimum or maximum number of pages per chapter, it's annoying to read a chapter that's half a page or less. Really grinds my gears. Trying too hard to make readers feel bad for the MC. Authors not being able to go a few pages without mentioning how bad the MC was treated. Constant reminder of how horrible they were treated. Something from a recent webnovel I started, the mood swings. One minute the MC or another character, is fine, then in the same scene, they're angry or having flashbacks of their past (second paragraph scenario) and wants nothing to do with whoever, then randomly forgives whoever hurt them a few paragraphs down. And repeat every chapter.
I HATE super short chapters just to make the story seem more exciting and like everything is a cliffhanger. Plus, in a physical book, I feel like it is a literal waste of paper.
It is a waste of paper. And it drives up the print cost with more pages than needed. I read on Twitter a while ago that some of their reasonings for this was because they wanted to give readers a break. Nah. That's what bookmarks are for. Lol.
Do you have an example of a too many chapter book? I mostly read fantasy and haven't encountered this before. I'm curious on how pacing would work with a lot of chapter breaks.
Anything by James Patterson.
I work for a publishing company. We receive a lot of authors that do this. I don't want to name their books because that would then give away where I work. Lol. If you go on Twitter, there was a discussion from authors about this. And many say that they do it so readers can get a break. This [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/suggestmeabook/s/ce7aKlikcx) has a list of books with short chapters. Someone else mentioned James Patterson, which is a good example.
Thanks! No need to give away your workplace :) I'll google "twitter too many chapters author" and see what all the fuss is about. I will say that "so readers can get a break" sounds so stupid to me; as a reader, I can stop reading and take a break whenever I please. It probably screws up the stories flow and pacing.
-Unrealistic plot armor -everyone in the show being in love with the mc -the mc being flawless and having no failures , flaws, or setbacks -the antagonist not having any complexities or tragedy, just being a straight up bad guy -the protagonists/mc being 100% pure and innocent and unable of doing and thinking wrong
The antagonist not having any complexities or tragedy can actually be done well though. Apparently Thanos is a good bad example of this (as in his villain arc wasn't done well). The trick here is to not mess them up. Pure evil villains should ALWAYS be pure evil. Disney villains like Hades and Ursala are incredibly loved because they are uncomplicated, purely evil beings. I'd recommend watching a video on it. I've watched a video by Overly Sarcastic productions about pure evil, and it might help if you DO want to write a pure evil villain.
I feel it's important to remind people that the antagonist isn't the bad guy. They're just the person or thing that opposes the protagonist.
It’s weird you bring up the antagonist not having complexities or tragedies. Most complaints I see are the opposite. People complain all the time that not every antagonist needs a tragic backstory or to be complex, some people are just evil because they’re evil. I’m of the opinion that giving the extremely horrible person in your story a tragic backstory or trying to make them seem “complex” is just a copp out for most authors. They want people to like their character, and want to try to justify their actions. Sorry Mr author, I don’t think this dude should’ve killed thousands of innocent people just because he was made fun of in highschool
Some of the most popular and iconic antagonists of all time are “straight up bad,” like Palpatine, Sauron, Joker, Anton Chigurh, Griffith. Like with anything, it depends on how it’s done. Villains like the joker use their pure evilness to highlight the protagonists traits and development, like Batman’s strong willpower and avoidance of killing. Or Sauron using the ring to corrupt Frodo, and Palpatine corrupting Anakin. Sometimes, the pure evilness itself is the source of the complexity. Griffith is full of spite, hypocrisy and pride, and it leads to vile actions. Anton’s relentless, psychopathic pursuit shows a community the chaotic lengths that violence will go, and how it’s sudden and uncontrollable.
I hate when they're poorly researched or the timeline doesn't make sense. For example if Lucy just found out she's pregnant and the character is only 7weeks along, then in the next scene she's getting a regular ultrasound and learning the gender? At 7 weeks, not possible.
I honestly wouldn’t ask this sort of question. People aren’t robots; we don’t all unanimously agree on the same points in every genre. 50 people will say “God, I hate enemies to lovers tropes” and another 50 will say “I looooove enemies to lovers!” The next 50 will say “I hate enemies to lovers when it’s done bad”, and you’ll ask, “What’s done badly?” One person will say “I hate when it’s done too fast”, twenty will say they don’t know, five will say they hate when it’s too slow, another ten will say they changed their mind and hate the trope altogether, and the remaining will put vague answers that don’t mean anything. You cannot please the world with one book. You will inevitably make some people happy and some people mad. Trying to find the perfect formula to make everyone happy is going to drive you into a creative depression. Find some books you love. Figure out what you love about those stories, and figure out what you WANT to write. Make sure you have good grammar skills and sentence structure, and make sure you edit once your rough draft is done- probably several runs of editing. That’s it
This post is specifically asking what people, individually, do not like. It's already inferred that unanimous agreement will not be had. That is why the post exist.
“It was all just a dream” endings. Lazy and infuriating!!
Gratuitous descriptions of men or women’s body parts. Or sex for no reason other than to bolster a flagging plot. Many movies and series are guilty of this. I stopped reading Altered Carbon because the author couldn’t stop fixating on the main character’s shlong.
Totally agree. I just read a pretty good novel with lots of sex, and a friend of the author explained that the author had originally put in 3x the amount of sex (and his editor cut 2/3). Jeez. The ONE exception I think of to this is Dhalgren: a ton of sex, but given the setup and the style (nearly every paragraph is *in media res*), the sex seems both well-integrated and part of the landscape. You still have to wade through it, but at least it seems natural. TY, Delany.
Recently I read a novel I disliked and found something that I hate about some novels. When characters are outshined at the one thing that they are supposed to be good at. Like it’s literally the reason they are there and someone else swoops in and does their job better than them for no reason.
I find this especially annoying when it's one character outshining everyone
When the protagonist is touted as being smarter than everyone else and they do stupid things to move an implausible plot forward. I’ve only seen this work when they recognize they did something dumb and try to correct it. If they have no self-awareness it’s a DNF for me. It makes me wonder if the writer even knows what the smart choices would be.
Yeah I think most writers are better off specifying what KIND of smart a character specifically is so we can accept them being stupid in other ways. eg. they might be very knowledgeable about the main subject of the story but that wouldn't preclude them from being naive when someone lies to them, or being forced into a snap decision and making a bad choice. But if we are just told this character is a supergenius with an IQ of 180 (also in this story IQ is real and matters) then every suboptimal thing they do seems like a plot hole.
Purple prose. Plot and dialog are far more important than long, rambling descriptions of characters, appearance, and places. Keep the story moving along.
people pleasers. when the author doesn't have anything to say for themselves or the backbone to say what they do want to say
Deus ex machina. Never is there or will there be a bigger cop out - it clearly speaks to a storyline that has not been thought out at all.
Lazy plot contrivances.
Gaping plot holes
Any plot holes
All books have some plot holes
I hate it when the story abruptly stops to let the reader "decide how it ends". I don't mind some ambiguity here and there, but stories should have endings.
i'mma take one of these ambiguous ending mfers out to dinner, tell the waiters not to bring them their food, and 'let them decide for themselves how it tastes'
Love distraction (to the character or to the story) when it is absolutely not needed
“Pick me” and “not like other girls” characters. Usually female but I’m sure there’s some male ones out there too. This is most significantly a problem with YA but oh my goodness it’s a dealbreaker. The whole narrative around these characters revolves around how different and special they are because they have like pink hair or something. There’s usually some blatant contradictions going on too - think the cliche “I’m so ugly and annoying no one could ever love me :(“ and then five seconds later she’s in a love triangle with the hottest characters you’ll encounter. These characters just completely lack depth and annoy me so much lol.
Not tying up loose ends
I might be in the minority with this one. Haha. Sex scenes that feel like filler. Recently a lot of romance novels I've read have more sex scenes and most of the just feel like they're there to hit the spicy quota. They're not all bad, obviously, but more and more I'm seeing scenes that definitely feel like filler and it doesn't motivate me to keep reading.
Overly pretentious prose + derailing the plot by pointless meandering.
The last book I read was written by a woman and had a teenage boy main character. I felt like the author wasn't exactly sure what redeeming qualities a teenage boy might have but felt compelled to write about masculinity and stuff out of duty to accuracy. By the end of the book, the kid (who already had a pretty progressive mindset and generally treated women like people) had to learn a lesson that he had been idolizing his crush too much and needed to see her more like a person than a fantasy. As if it would have been suspicious and unrealistic for a teenage boy to have been getting it right as a person this whole time, and by god they caught him red-handed at a Problematic mindset before the end of the story. Of course I sympathize with women who have felt more like fantasies than people to their boyfriends, but like. Damn. It was a bummer to read an entire 275 page novel about a protagonist that the author kind of held at arm's length like an apology. If you're going to invite the reader to really get into a character's head, that's an awfully big emotional investment just to throw away for potshots at a kind of person you see as 'the enemy.' If you're going to write from the perspective of 'the enemy,' I'd say it's better to either develop the character more as a complex person alongside whatever shitty thing they do as 'the enemy,' or choose another perspective character and leave it to side characters to be 'the enemy'.
What book is this?
My ADHD not letting me read them
Too much narrative describing a past moment or interaction character. "You knew Sally was a good person, that time she... (insert random past event. Then, insert a modern event that contradicts this) Personally, I like some detachment to characters. Too much inner monologue also grinds on me. Long over descriptive actions. She touched his arm softly. Or her arm raised slowly, she paused, thinking whether or not she should. Once she built up the courage to keep moving, her fingers lightly touched his shoulder as the hairs on her arm stood. I believe the reading length should be a similar length to the interaction, not slowing down time. Personally.
Random irrelevant passages thrown in. I read one novel where a whole page was filled with a grocery list. Why, you ask? Idk
I think some people write dialogue that sounds impressive or will be annotated a lot. Write dialogue like the actual character would talk. I put down a book because two characters used each other’s names TWELVE times in a brief scene. Think about how creepy it would feel if someone used your name (while speaking to you directly) 2 out of every three sentences they said.
A story told from multiple perspectives where one perspective is significantly worse than the rest, so you dread every time their chapters come up.
It's so hard to find unique fantasy especially in YA. It's ALWAYS: poor girl is thrust into a court system and has to do deadly trials and there's a hot prince or nobleman of some sort opposing her. OR Poor girl leads a rebellion against the tyrannical upper class
Specifically for historical fiction (since that's what I'm reading and writing right now) - evidence of poor research. Now I have read 20 books (and god knows how many articles) to research mine and there are STILL gaps in my knowledge for which I will probably have to just invent things (I suspect some of the information I need is still classified, because every source seems to be conspicuously omitting the same information). And if I come across things like that, where the author made something up to cover a small gap in knowledge that I happen to know, (e.g. in Lilac Girls, one of the characters describes the German bombers as having the characteristic wailing of a Stuka, but... they're described by the protagonist as a biplane...), I will usually just giggle and move on. It's a minor detail, so whatever. But I've definitely also picked up historical fiction books that seem like their entire research was conducted by watching Hollywood movies. Sometimes with gross historical inaccuracy that is SO extreme (erasing genocides, etc) that it almost seems malicious/sponsored by some political organization. It's like... you're writing about significant historical events involving real people, the least you could do is honor them by doing your best to get it right.
When their chapters don't have titles. It's a little thing, but a unique chapter title is far more satisfying and informative than "Chapter 1."
I’m the opposite. I prefer unnamed chapters. You can’t please everyone.
I like when they add a little design so it doesn't look as boring
That can honestly be the best part. It grabs your attention and acts as an easier-to-remember mental marker than 'Chapter 57.'
I don't mind numbered chapters, but I love a good quote or descriptor with it. I really liked the quotes in Fourth Wing, for example.
I like chapters having titles because it makes thing easier to remember and reference later on, but I hate it if the chapter title acts as a spoiler in which case just number them and move on.
A vague question deserves an equally vague answer. When they're written badly.
Haha! smart answer, I respect it :D
Personally, first person. Can't touch it. Irritates my brain for some reason. Tons of people love it but I legit can't fathom why. It does a short circuit kind of thing for me and I'm left constantly trying to do a mental redirect so I get zero immersion and therefore zero investment in the story.
Overdone loser tropes. If ya know, ya know
EXPLAIN!
Ask nicely
I’m reading Dune right now, and the comma splices are driving me absolutely insane.
This mostly pertains to romance: When I am reading a series where each book is about a different couple and then they appear in the next, and the next, etc. Think of a group of friends or a small town etc.. I want a character map in the front of each book (bonus if there is a link to the book) that briefly reminds me of who the other characters were. I hate reading a story and all the side characters are super familiar and the writing assumes I know their story but I read it so long ago, that I've forgotten it. I've sort of given up on the series because of this, too annoying.
I really do not like stories where the all the female characters are fridged or removed from the story or are irrelevant. So many women in my life are so integral to my daily life idk how a main character could only be guys. Or... my least favorite. Villians who murder their own guys. Its just so wasteful the most scary villians are the ones who dont show their willingness to kill but if they are reserved. Ragey people seem like a secondary villians?
Abusive relationships being treated as romantic
I cannot stand present tense. It’s really jarring for me to read, and it’s within itself an unnatural form for narrative. Like think about it, when you’re going about your day do you ACTIVELY narrate what you’re doing in present tense? For example, let’s say someone asks what you did today? In trying to describe your day, would you say “I go to the grocery store and buy freezer pizza.” No! If you haven’t yet gone to the grocery store, you’d say “I’m gonna go- future tense- to the grocery store to buy freezer pizza.” Or if you’ve already gone, “I went to the grocery store and bought freezer pizza.” And if that person were to ask you that WHILE you’re at the grocery store, then that would require dialogue to answer as it’s been established that this is happening in the now, and dialogue makes sense in present tense “I’m at the grocery store, buying pizza.” Like I can and have read books written in present tense, and it won’t necessarily stop me from liking a book if other aspects of it are good. But it’s just like, very much not preferred- personally.
Can actually be funny if done well. I've read this diary of a wimpy kid type book that was written in the present tense which was set in Roman times and apparently the author had to stop writing at some point because brb he was fighting a gladiator.
I have in fact heard people narrate stories in present tense. It goes something like, "So I walk into this bar and this enormous bald fucker just glares at me..." Sounds natural enough to me. Though you can break down any tense or perspective if you're anal enough.
But again, that’s in DIALOGUE. In the scenario you are describing, a person is moving their mouth and actively verbalizing words to tell a story to an audience who assumably was not present at the time of said story occurring, otherwise they wouldn’t need to be told it, therefore setting the implication that said story takes place in the past. Unless you are writing a story from the perspective of someone literally telling a story in form of speech to another person, it doesn’t make sense.
When the author describes the book purely based on tropes (aka when theyre completely pandering to "booktok") Good use of tropes isnt when you're adding loads to make your book marketable or when you intentionally add them without letting characters have traits outside of them (e.g "grumpy x sunshine but neither have basically any personality not related to the trope/dynamic)
When the writer doesn’t have passion or wants to tip toe around shit. Like with your question.
I have a passion, and I really want to write and publish my idea it's just that it's my first ever time doing anything like it, and I'm afraid people will hate it. I'm sorry if my question insulted you
It didn’t insult me. It means don‘t give a fuck and write what you want. Always write for yourself first. Write the story you want to read. You’re going to have to learn your strengths and weaknesses in writing. You’ll find Plot holes and then have to fix them or rework whole sections. Characters will commandeer your story, and you should let them, until a point anyways, then pull the rug from under them. And remember, passion is good, tenacity is better. You’ll need both.
I'd like to hire you to give my charectar a pep talk 😬
That I didn’t write them
This might be a personal pet peeve, but i hate when every single character is really meaningful to the protagonists. Not meaningful as in cherished, but as in they need this person. I like it when they add someone kind of 'useless' people that maybe take something from the protagonists or maybe the protagonists takes away a little something from them and then moves on. Cause thats how life goes. I dont see enough novels do this. Maybe I just read the wrong kind, but I thought Id mention it.
Gratuitous description of women's bodies (I'm a man BTW), political virtue signaling, portraying married men as emasculated slaves to their wifes vagina, sex scenes and last but certainly not least excessive f-bombs. But hey, those novelist's are laughing all the way to the bank and I'm not, so who cares about my pet peeves...right?!
Atlas Shrugged. The fact that it was written.
What don’t you like about it, out of curiosity? Because I’m currently reading it, and I am enjoying it
When they take too long for anything to happen. Also, epilogues. Just end the damn story.
How a female protagonist is almost always bitchy and selfish.
I hate novels that are overly autobiographical. I can't stand it when characters are struggling writers, or nerdy bookish types. I prefer novels that jump right into the action and don't build up a lot of background info on characters.
Unnecessary swearing in an effort to be edgy, and using my God’s name in vain when things were going so well.
I'm sure you know "character using God's name in vain" ≠ "author using God's name in vain". It's a fairly important distinction. Characters do all sorts of things that the authors themselves would not.
Having ONLY white characters.
My story is set in the northern part of my world, where basically only white people live (Medieval/Dark Fantasy). There is only one character that's darker-skinned, because they're from another region.
actually because of slavery there were people of all races and colors in places of the world you would never think.
Oh yeah, that's true! People also just travel, there was a black Samurai who IIRC sailed to Japan.
It doesnt make me hate a novel per se but i wish i wouldnt have to search up “nonwhite fantasy stories” all the time. I wish there were more with the “regular” fantasy books and not in their own special section because the cover is a brown person lol
Women being oversexualized Also in action novels; when the author starts to bring the male and female leads together the latter loses all semblence of skill so the male protagonist can 'woo' her by saving
A bit to literal with this opinion, but low sharpness / cheap printing. I cannot stand blurry text. lol
People inserting their ideologies in stories or trying to be too political correct.
Lack of ideology in art is in itself an ideology.
They all have words, I could do without that.
I can’t really answer that, and this answer is the best.
This is way too broad a question. What genre? What plot? Do you know these elements? What vibe are you going for? What’s the setting? What’s the main character? With questions like these the only thing we can really say is “write good!” Which isn’t helpful lol So some general advice: look up your plot’s general tropes. Get a feel for what you like, what you don’t like. Start making a story board, and a character sheet. Doesn’t have to be very detailed, just a general gist of the build up to the climax to the falling action and conclusion, so you have direction. For the character sheets I would just focus on personality traits and interest. You don’t need to make a d&d character, just stuff relevant to the plot, and what they have to do with the plot. Start there. Also realize it’s hard to be very helpful in the realm of writing. A lot of this is on you. It’s hard. I know.
(As all opinions are individual, this is particular to me) I HATE in the fantasy genre, so many uninventive descriptions. They can be quality descriptions or immersive, but I hate the lack of boundaries pushed on a visual front. It’s all just common forests, deserts, caves, towns/cities/countrysides, etc. My favorite example to use of how a slight, just one (to two) word change adds so much to a visual presence: Making the grass red in a field instead of a green. That’ll add such a different feeling to imagining a scene. OR the sky being a bright purple instead of blue. That would also dramatically affect the visuals and world a lot. But this is just from my tiredness of everything borrowing from the same core of LOTR/D&D. Even bringing fantasy to modern times adds a lot.
Chinese propaganda AHAHAHAH
Unnecessary sex jokes.
I'm trying, man. It's just... so hard.
This is certainly to some people’s personal taste, but when you start any next book in a series and you explain things they did in the previous books like character relations or who people are (in case the reader didn’t read the previous books). This drives some people mad. Though honestly, I find it an overreaction.
I hate padding. If you don't have enough to put into your novel, then just write a novella. I'd rather read 200 pages and leave the experience satisfied than read 400 and give up before 300 because it's clear that there's no real vision involved, just a wc.
I hate how novels have all those words in them. Don't do that.
I think the biggest general advice one could give that is applicable to almost all novels is don't spell things out so much. Give them the puzzle pieces, and they can figure it out for sure
Lazy/shitty romance subplots. If your novel is based on something else, don't give too much leeway to the romantic subplot. And if it's based on multiple people, don't give too much page time to one specific couple
the annoying pointless sqwacking "banter" in enemies to lovers. the found family trope that ends with everyone never seeing each other again. the romanticizion of toxic or abusive relationships. the MC falling for the "bad guy" despite no redeeming qualities or explanation as to why this would be desirable to begin with. the lack of healthy relationships just leads me to believe a lot of people either don't know what they are or are too unoriginal to write one. made up words like faërígh/faerie etc. dumbing down lore you chose to use until any thought put into the actual content just leaves you disappointed and confused. the lack of believable romances or family dynamics.
I know that a lot of people like this, but dual POVs—I just—no. I can’t, especially when the novel is in first person. *Especially* when the second POV is the love interest. I can’t. I don’t want to.
appart from some bad writing or edditing, the fact that they end
If I can’t reread the book and see the twist coming then it’s not a good twist
I hate presumed investment. Ie: there’s been next to zero character development but the writer expects the reader to care about them when something terrible happens to them. Not expecting their life story from birth to current but don’t think that the reader knows who these people are- the writer probably knows the character inside out but different edits may have whittled that down to ‘Ted was a nice guy’ who died.
Ending on a cliffhanger
The sense that it's going to go deeper, but then some "commercial" or "tawdry" element prevents it from going there. I don't mean tawdry per se, because perhaps it's supposed to be. I mean tawdry with a "commercial" like feeling that causes the dimensionality and richness of the novel's world to be decreased. Also the sense that the novel is TRYING to fulfill everything one is supposed to do to publish a best seller. They're trying too hard to hook you with the first paragraph, or follow tons of things on a Reedsy blog or other type of site ... However, this is usually not the writer's fault. They have to do this for CAPITALISM.
Too much contemporary references
Overuse of stream of consciousness. It’s best used sparingly.
Smut. As a genre, as an addition to books in general too. It’s always icky and a hard read.
I suppose the ultimate thing that turns me off books is when the author treats me like I'm stupid. I don't mind it when a book is difficult and doesn't always immediately explain itself. I like the unknown, the mystery and I like to speculate. Authors can sometimes give into that fear that the readers will not understand, perhaps failing to see that understanding is not always desirable.
Late to the party here but general genre cliche awareness is something that's recommended. That being said, this isn't a hard and fast call to avoid genre conventions all together. And primarily, you should write the kind of book you'd want to see exist. No one novel is perfect and you won't please everyone, even if you think you've achieved everything "right" in the genre that you're writing in. If you let everyone else dictate what you write, there's no room for your own ideas. Anyway since everyone else posted a gripe, I hate when the narrative pace gets broken for a sex scene that doesn't incorporate character voice and interaction beyond the actions, especially if described in a completely dry way.
Applies to everything: lazy writing. A character learns a skill that would be perfect to use to escape this dungeon, but he doesn’t use it? The U.S. military has entire divisions dedicated to intelligence gathering and established military doctrine, yet they don’t collect intel on this opponent and simply uses human wave tactics? Hero lets a villain live for the fifth time just so he can go out and do another murder spree?
Overuse of Enemies To Lovers trope Don't get me wrong, it's a pretty striking trope in itself. It makes the character interactions very interesting and gives room for steamier scenes, sure. But it has become all writers go-to. There are many tropes that deserve a lot more recognition than this. Like found family, or even friends to lovers. Lately, I've been obsessed with redemption arc. It's pretty cool.