10 Bookish Pet Peeves

I've been thinking a lot about the tropes I do and don't like in books. Thinking about this quickly turned into me realizing that I have some literary pet peeves that I need to get off my chest. Here are my ten biggest book pet peeves that no one asked for. These aren't in any particular order.

Watered Down Tolkien

I'm not going to sit here and pretend like all high-fantasy isn't compared to Tolkien. The Lord of the Rings had huge influence on the development of the genre and authors who would go on to write high-fantasy. I won't, and can't, fault an author for taking inspiration from Tolkien. My issue is when it's clear an author is trying to be the next Tolkien. You can have all the elves, dwarves and orcs that you want, but if you don't do anything new with those races, if there isn't something unique about the story, it feels like you're just ripping off Tolkien.

Non-sensical (Or Unneeded) Plot Twists

Plot twists need to make sense. There need to be breadcrumbs spread throughout the story giving the reader a sense of foreshadowing. If a happy-go-lucky side character changes for the last three pages to suddenly be a jerk because the bad guy shapeshifted to look like him, that's a bad twist. If the same character gets separated from the rest of the group halfway through, and when he's reunited he's been acting "strange" or seems less happy, that same twist works a little better. Plot twists also need to be crucial for the story to move forward. A book can have multiple plot twists, but the story needs to justify it. Either the thriller's two POV characters are actually the same person from different points in time or the main character is suffering from dissociative identity disorder. You can't have both just for shock value. Don't have a twist just to have a twist.

Bad Allegory

I feel like people want to write an allegorical novel, or have an aspect of their story be an allegory to something else, but they aren't willing to commit to it. In a science fiction novel, the treatment of one alien population by another is meant to be an allegory for racism, but the author doesn't go deep enough into the idea by exploring or expanding upon the in-universe consequences of the idea. So, the "racism" allegory falls apart and the message becomes very surface level. That's just an example, but I think we can all name at least one book where the author meant for it to be deep and thought-provoking, but failed.

Mean Girls Who Don't Make Sense

This one might need an explanation. I don't have a problem with "mean girl" characters, if it makes sense to have them in a story. They fit YA coming-of-age stories or contemporary fiction, maybe even in romance. Mean girls in fantasy or science fiction though? That's where I have an issue. If the protagonist is already dealing with an evil wizard, why do they also have to encounter Regina George?

Everyone Ends Up Married

I'm not the only person who has problems with this one, but I thought it should feature here. I'm not saying that a book can't have romance. I just hate it when the last chapter or two of a book consists solely of giving every character a partner. Especially for books that are not primarily romances. Please don't waste my time pairing people up. I don't care that much about the romantic subplots.

Jerky Love Interests

I mentioned this in my post about my feelings about romantic subplots, but I thought I should mention it here. You can write a bad boy without needing to make him a misunderstood outcast with a heart of gold. If he's a jerk for most of the book, and then does one nice thing, that doesn't make him a viable love interest. Enemies to lovers is one thing, if done well. But if I'm actively wishing that the protagonist ends up with anyone else, the romantic tension is actually complete and utter disdain.

Excessive Unanswered Questions

I know that some books are meant to make you think. Some authors end books the way that they do to make the reader want more. But sometimes, there are a boatload of unanswered questions at the end of a book because there wasn't enough world-building or the author didn't show/tell the reader enough information in the text to understand. "What happens next?" is very different than "I know what I read, but I have no idea what it's supposed to mean". Even if I don't know everything about the world, I should know enough or be able to fill in the blanks enough so that the cliffhanger/set up for the sequel, is actually a cliffhanger and not result in me wondering why I should suddenly care about this new character/threat.

Inconsistent or Unrealistic Dialogue

People are inconsistent. It's a fact of life and realistic characters might have inconsistencies. However, when characters speak a certain way, whether it's an absence of slang terms or not using contractions, or sounding like they stepped out of a Shakespeare play, for most of a novel and then suddenly the dialogue pattern changes, it becomes glaringly obvious and it feels weird to the reader. Likewise, who a character is needs to be taken into account when writing dialogue. A teenager's dialogue should sound like a teenager, not a 40-year-old housewife. It's very obvious when characters in specific groups are being written by people who've haven't spoken to members of that group in a while.

Two Minute Battles

I may have mentioned this in some of my reviews, but how the antagonist is stopped is just as important as writing a compelling villain. Don't spend 290 out of 300 pages telling me how evil and powerful the bad guy is only to have him be defeated in two pages. Unless this is a fake-out, and the heroes were fighting an underling disguised as the bad guy, it's a letdown. If the conflict with the antagonist isn't the main focus of the story (say, the romance comes first), don't build the villain up to be a huge threat.

Everything-But-The-Kitchen-Sink-itis

I know that's a long name for it, but it fully encapsulates how it feels while reading something that falls into this category. There are a few books I can name where the author clearly had too many ideas and not enough pages to devote to them. Instead of cutting some ideas out, and saving them for a sequel or another story entirely, they decide to include everything. As a result, all of these ideas are thrown in and there's not enough time to do each idea justice. To use The Hunger Games as an example, there's a reason why the 74th Games and the war against the Capitol didn't happen in the same book. It allowed the author a chance to give each one the attention it deserved. By having too many "big events" happen in one book, each one suffers.

Those are my ten biggest bookish pet peeves. Or at least the ten biggest I can think of at the moment What are some of your literary pet peeves? Are there any I mentioned that you like?

Follow Me Elsewhere: Facebook \ Twitter \ Goodreads \ Instagram

Buy Me A Coffee?