Amassment Message Board

What are the things you like and dislike in a writer's style or tone?

I was thinking of this because I've noticed that I can't really point at anyone in particular when I think of people that I consider good at writing, but I can easily point at elements that I personally always like or dislike in how people write (this applies to everything, I'm not just thinking of novels, this is also true in essays, articles, twitter posts...). So I was curious to hear what is it like for you.

For example, I've noticed that the easiest way to turn me off from anything is to have an aggressive, cocksure tone. This bothers me to the point that someone could be writing something that's factually right, and I'll be just scowling at the text for a while because of how they said it.

Specifically in fiction: long physical descriptions seem to be my kryptonite, especially when they stall the action. I don't want to read ten pages of how someone's clothing looked like. I am perfectly fine if it's ten pages of emotional descriptions, though.

To end on a positive one: the only one I can think of right now is that I'm easily captured by clever metaphors. I don't really have an example right now, but I know that whenever I see one, it gets my attention instantly.

I'm really curious about yours, though.

What I love to see in writing:
- Florid imagery and metaphors, especially for describing a setting
- Different character perspectives offered
- Narrators that are "pleasant"-sounding (if that makes sense)
- Lots of tongue in cheek humor and puns
- Character banter, "slice of life" human interactions

What I hate to see in writing:
- clunky character descriptions (like Dubs described above)
- Narrators that are so jaded they feel one-dimensional (if that makes sense)
- "gritty realism" (read: "LOL THIS ISN'T FANTASY CAUSE THATS FOR KIDS DURR HURR")
- jerky or too quick plot pacing
- present tense in general

Looool "gritty realism"
I wish I could find this post I saw a while ago in which there was some brodude talking about how he likes fantasy but none of that kiddy stuff, he likes HARD FANTASY, WITHOUT MAGIC OR ELVES OR THAT SHIT. I really wish I could find it.

Hmm do you have an example of pleasant narrators?

Let's see--gotta unpack the word "pleasant", LOL

- Observant of environment and others, as opposed to exceedingly self-focused
- Shows growth throughout book, as opposed to reacting predictably to same stimuli
- Doesn't draw or incite conflict, but responds to it, as opposed to being drama maniac

I feel like I'm dancing all around what I'm trying to say, LOL, but I like a narrator who provides a fairly clear look at the world they live in, as well as being a character in their own right. Plus, the narrator sets the tone for the book, and if the narrator's personality pisses me off, then I find it hard to enjoy the book even if the plot and other characters are good.

I actually don't have a pleasant narrator example off the top of my head, but my boyfriend had an "unpleasant narrator" experience when trying to read the book version of Forrest Gump; the book version has Forrest Gump being REALLLLLLY racist and awful within the first two pages, and my boyfriend just couldn't even go on reading. It was one of those cases where the movie outstripped the book.

I like to know what places look like but don't want too much description, just a quick basic idea is enough. Space out description and background information between action scenes. Take time introducing the characters, don't throw them out all at once or I won't be able to keep up with them all and care for none. Give me substance before supplement, meaning, give me some defining characteristics (shown by actions rather than just telling me) before you move on to the less unique/interesting elements of a character. I also like deciding whose side I'm on, so I don't want the narrator to tell me what character I'm supposed to like or dislike either.

I also don't like when they put environmental or social messengers on my adventures, but that's not a flaw of narration, more like a personal preference. I want to hear my computer read to me about an epic protagonist blowing stuff up without a lecture on the environment, or any other topic I don't care about. If it must be there, I prefer it to be kept subtle enough so that I can ignore it and focus on the adventure. Too much romance is also something I don't like, it makes the characters feel too wimpy to relate to them, people don't die in real life just because they're single, or had a breakup or something. I also don't like characters who are overly sacrificing or perfect, because they are also hard to relate to and there's no real tension to their situations because they're always going to be heroic.

Because descriptions tend to be boring to me, I like it when they are spiced up with metaphors, comparisons and references, though I still don't want them to be too long, even then. Most of all, I want stuff to happen. I don't understand why there are books that are famous or classic with so few events in them. I like hearing about what the characters think and feel, but I don't like it when feelings and settings is all there is, or when they play up a boring event as if it's something huge. I prefer fast paced stories with a lot of stuff going on throughout their course, still a good pace so that it's not total randomness, but eventful. Uneventful stories feel lazy, like the author wanted a novel but only had enough ideas for a short story. Why not write a good short story instead of a mediocre novel?

I absolutely adore the writing style of Nabokov, especially in Lolita. Whether or not you agree with or like the plot, I think it's undeniable that this man could write beautiful prose. It's even more astounding that English wasn't even his native tongue! If you haven't read it, I think this passage from the opening chapter says it all:

“Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita. Did she have a precursor? She did, indeed she did. In point of fact, there might have been no Lolita at all had I not loved, one summer, an initial girl-child. In a princedom by the sea. Oh when? About as many years before Lolita was born as my age was that summer. You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, exhibit number one is what the seraphs, the misinformed, simple, noble-winged seraphs, envied. Look at this tangle of thorns.”

One day I hope I can write as powerfully and intelligently as him.

AGREED. Gives a great sense of Humbert Humbert as a character and yet the words just flow over you, too. :)

Purple prose. It hurts, precious.