Re: What things that make you quit reading a novel after serveral chapters?

#61
Easy. That "love at first sight" nonsense. It seems like a copout so that authors don't have to put effort into organically developing growing feelings between two characters over an extended period of time. Not to mention suspension of disbelief. It doesn't exist in reality. A mentally healthy person can't fall in love with someone they don't really know. There can be sexual attraction, but that is lust, not love. 

Re: What things that make you quit reading a novel after serveral chapters?

#62

Alexander Wrote: A mentally healthy person can't fall in love with someone they don't really know. There can be sexual attraction, but that is lust, not love

That's your own personal experience.

A burgeoning flower is a flower, nonetheless.


You can play a computer game for two hours and start loving it (when I first played divinity 2 I got goosebumps).
You can talk with someone over a couple of hours and fall in love.
Men tend to fall immediately in love while women are more calculating. So as a man, after 2 dates, you should never say to your girl/woman that you love her, but only after some time, cuz this will put women off.

No, this kind of love can't compare to the love of couples married for 40 years – we all agree –, nonetheless, people can hold earnest feelings towards someone, after meeting them for only a single time. You can become friends in hours too if you are compatible.



Quote:The author using too many words that they've created themselves but then only ever explain what those words mean once (I'm looking at you Kathryn Lasky, author of Guardian of Ga'Hoole)

Glossaries are needed for precisely this reason.

Re: What things that make you quit reading a novel after serveral chapters?

#65
@CookieCabal

That’s not what you’re doing. This thread is about what experiences you have that turn you away from books and talking about that. You’re not disagreeing with their opinion your invalidating their experience which is an entirely different matter.

An example. I dislike certain kinds of covers on books (and other things). A lot. I would look out for a different version of the same song from the same artist on my music app just so I can have an album cover that I don’t feel averse to. I get a low opinion of books instantly when they had a woman on the cover for whatever reason and I realise that the protagonist isn’t that woman, and in fact none of the pov main characters are that woman either. That woman isn’t representative of the primary engaging elements of the story but is on the cover for aesthetics value and I personally find that very annoying because it’s on some level misleading advertising that gives me a different expectation of what the story is than it actually end up being.

This wouldn’t simple be an “opinion” but is in fact a personal experience. It’s a very superficial dislike that’s a little unfair to certain books/media, but no-one ever said dislikes had to be non-subjectove, and implying they shouldn’t be would be quite foolish. You might think judging a book for its cover sounds stupid and dumb, but there is no point arguing over the fact that someone might dislike a book for its cover, because that’s their prerogative. You might argue that for a specific book that deserves better, but trying to tell someone they should just ignore their personal dislike just because you dislike their dislike is just needlessly antagonistic.

What this thread is isn’t an argument over “what things you ‘should’ dislike“ but an exploration of what things people might dislike and you’re only really contributing if you help with learning that “oh, using too many nonsense made up words can be super annoying sometimes, and contribute very little to what makes a story actually interesting, I didn’t consider that” or “Oh, most love-at-first-sight narratives are usually done in an annoyingly unrealistic manner, and plays some part in why some people dislike the romance genre, that’s something I can pay attention to and learn more about” and “oh, this dislike this person mentioned isn’t a universal or immediately applicable consideration, but keeping it on mind would probably add a lot of nuance in analyzing when things become too much or when they aren’t enough to bother most people, and I should seek to add more nuance to our collective understanding of this problem rather than being a blunt object and rejecting the entirety of someone’s personal feelings without any qualifiers of nuance at all while simultaneously not contributing anything to the original topic of this thread other than argumentativeness.”

I am completely open to having civil discussions of course, but I know a bit about the nuance of word choice and the fact that internet discussions can devolve. You need to be careful that when discussing a point of why a dislike exists or not you should be adding truth by contributing nuance rather than removing truth by trying to devalue someone’s “personal experience” with a opening line as inherently dismissive as:
“That is your personal experience.” and responding to a dislike of overused made-up words with a statement made purely to counter someone else’s experience as “Glossaries exist for precisely this reason.” which implies that said dislike would be somehow solved by these glossaries; that people who dislike too many made-up words would spend even more time with them by reading these glossaries; that people attentively read glossaries as common practice in genre fiction; that people who dislike too many made-up words would care to learn more about them; and that there is no nuance to how numerous made-up words could be in a fiction and that the severity of their prevalence isn’t in fact the entire point.

Re: What things that make you quit reading a novel after serveral chapters?

#66

Endless Wrote: @CookieCabal

That’s not what you’re doing. This thread is about what experiences you have that turn you away from books and talking about that. You’re not disagreeing with their opinion your invalidating their experience which is an entirely different matter.


1. This thread is posted in the debate section
2. The concept of the benefit of the doubt exists; you are wrongly misinterpreting me
3. A.B. said, "mentally healthy person can't fall in love with someone they don't really know."

I am not invalidating their experience.
Take 3, I am able to fall directly in love, thus I am not a mentally healthy person (apparently)
I only claim that I am a mentally stable person

For example, somebody claims that Ceasar was a good person.
This person is entitled to his experience. If he loved De Bello Gallico so much, then the fact "I loved Ceasar/his action" is true.
If said person further claims that Ceasar was an ethically acting man, I'll disagree. (I can give counterexamples of raiding cities)

Back to Alexancer Bivens who claimed that a) he dislikes books where love on the first sight happens
and b) Humans can't fall immediately in love. About A, you can't scientifically discuss, b) you can falsify it (this cookie here)

I am only arguing about B.


“Glossaries exist for precisely this reason.” which implies that said dislike would be somehow solved by these glossaries; that people who dislike too many made-up words would spend even more time with them by reading these glossaries; that people attentively read glossaries as common practice in genre fiction; that people who dislike too many made-up words would care to learn more about them; and that there is no nuance to how numerous made-up words could be in a fiction and that the severity of their prevalence isn’t in fact the entire point.

You are again misrepresenting me. I meant to say that glossaries are an important tool, and I thought that the book in question might not have one (some don't). You might be interpreting: "CookieCabal said that xx is stupid because he does not use a glossary, which would solve all of his problems.


edit: I changed it to "Glossaries are needed for precisely this reason."
I'm sorry, but I still don't believe that it's my fault when someone interprets my sentence as a passive-aggressive statement when there is none to be found.

Re: What things that make you quit reading a novel after serveral chapters?

#69
@cookiecabal - It may not have been your intention, but there are others who will reply in threads with the sole purpose of telling others how wrong they are. I imagine it makes them feel superior. This adds very little to the topic and leads to frustration with others. A little more care in your wording could help soften the impact. From what I see, just changing your first sentence to something like 'I hold a different opinion' or 'that is not my experience' would make it about you and your experiences and not about the other person. I feel that is more in line with your intentions in the post.


I would still argue that people can't fall in 'love' at first sight, at that point it's attraction. If you then talk with that person for a few hours it wouldn't be 'first sight' anymore. However, I think the major gripe here is with the unrealistic ways it's often portrayed and the stupid reasons. 


It's one of my annoyances too, though I've never put down a book for it unless it was really badly done: Saving a girl, in whatever way, shape or form, rarely ever makes her love you and if it does, the resulting relationship is doomed more often than not. Way more often than not. It's even called 'the knight in shining armor syndrome' and it's a fantasy held by way too many men. It may be part cultural and part genetics, I haven't studied into it that much. There is something similar for women, where they help a 'loser' of a man become the best he can be. I forgot what it's called, but the relation is equally unstable.

Add to that things like the MC helping the girl up after she fell (he's so kind) or standing up against a bully (he's so brave) or being seen training hard (he's so diligent) or just being a bad-ass (he's so strong). Sure, it can act as the spark of interest, but it's only the beginning, it's not all there is - or at least it shouldn't be, yet often that is as far as the 'love' goes.

Whenever I encounter a situation like that I just assume the author is either unable or unwilling to write actual romance into the story and continue reading

Re: What things that make you quit reading a novel after serveral chapters?

#70
I've never given rep before but I did with that rant. *Upvote* The plot shouldn't be driven by incompetence. The biggest turnoff for me around RR is when the first chapter promises one thing but never delivers. Don't show me an action-filled struggle for survival in the first chapter but the next 6 are purely about how someone feels or constant worldbuilding dumps.  

Re: What things that make you quit reading a novel after serveral chapters?

#71
@Oskatat - Working with cops for several years and I've seen more than one start dating a girl he met on a call. It basically reinforces what you said about the knight in shining armor falling flat. Most of them were assault family violence where the gf or wife falls for the handsome cop that saves her from the assaultive bf but after a few months, it always falls apart. Except for one where a sgt saved a girl's life during a traffic accident and he married her sister, kinda indirect knight in shining armor. 

Re: What things that make you quit reading a novel after serveral chapters?

#72
I'd like to adjust my position, after a bunch of disappointing reads.

For PUBLISHED books, I am mostly disappointed by

- Mary Sue / Larry Stu characters
- lack of logic
- endless whining

For ONLINE (read: amateur) books, I am mostly disappointed by

- jumping between present and past tense
- unreadable dialogue / bad paragraphing
- complete lack of background (something just happens, but why?)
- lack of logic

The first two (jumping tense and unreadable dialogue) completely stop me from even trying.

Re: What things that make you quit reading a novel after serveral chapters?

#73
This one isn't so much about quitting a novel as it is quitting an author.
I just got done reading a story. 4.5 stars, 13k followers, 340 plus chapters, over 25 million views.

And the story just ENDS. In the middle of nowhere. The ending is forced, like the author just said 'eff it I've had enough'. Nothing is rectified, remedied or concluded. The last few chapters aimed like they were going to lead to a continuation within a new arc but instead they just stopped, like the narrator died half way through. Old characters were lost and never looked back on except in passing. A near-immortal passing of time was used to kill off some characters or completely change other characters' personalities, effectively removing them from any further story line.

Over 5,500 pages and the last chapter is... A cliff jump. Not a cliff hanger but a jump. Right off a mile high precipice straight into a head splattering crash on a rocky shore.

Characters that had months of development were just discarded and minimized.  A story that still had potential and so many things left unresolved was just... tossed away as if it had become a malignancy in the authors life.

Needless to say but I'll say it anyway, "I will never read another word they've written or will write!".

Re: What things that make you quit reading a novel after serveral chapters?

#75

Oskatat Wrote: may not have been your intention, but there are others who will reply in threads with the sole purpose of telling others how wrong they are.

Well, I always give everyone on the internet the benefit of the doubt, unless proven otherwise. This isn't a novel where you can guess the character of people. I don't think neutrally formulated sentences have to be reformulated just because someone reads passive-aggressive intents in them. (even though I did reformulate one) I honestly can never fathom how someone would think attacking an opinion entails attacking the person. Are people made out of cotton wool these days?



Quote:A mentally healthy person can't fall in love with someone they don't really know


This isn't exactly formulated nicely if you think about what it entails (even though I know what the author meant, and don't take offense)
This statement has factual character and does not fall into the category "I feel"/experience

Oskatat Wrote: I would still argue that people can't fall in 'love' at first sight, at that point it's attraction. If you then talk with that person for a few hours it wouldn't be 'first sight' anymore.

I mean that's a matter of semantics.

If you just look at someone from afar and say "WOW I LOVE HER", then ofc I agree, this isn't love.
I would still classify a two-hour-long discussion as "at first sight". Since it's a short time (compared to the 20000 hours living together as a couple) and the first time.
Oskatat Wrote: Saving a girl, in whatever way, shape or form, rarely ever makes her love you and if it does, the resulting relationship is doomed more often than not.

Actually, this does happen irl. No, no fights vs monsters;) Some people met their better half in the supermarket (lol), saving them from the monster known as badly designed shelves and compartments. Apparently, a few people become acquainted this way and marry later on.
(a better love story than twilight)

Re: What things that make you quit reading a novel after serveral chapters?

#76
What I usually do in these kinds of situations, is I think about being more impersonal. Like, I might object to a thing but I usually don’t do anything about it. If I feel more strongly about it I feel not addressing the issue at all could be potentially worse, and give people the benefit of the doubt by no keeping quiet or assuming they’re completely unreasonable and don’t listen to other people’s opinions ( because that’s also wrong ). So step one is saying I object, with no real context or justification than poking the problem. After that it’s hopefully job done because the other person either figures out what I mean and makes their own judgement of what can be learned from that, never actually replying because it’s not necessary, or worst case they actually reply, which means they either don’t get my objection whatsoever or disagree with it and want to add more arguing to the discussion. Other people are also under consideration here, because just mentioning my objection allows those other people to see the problem has at least been addressed and hopefully reduces the need for them to try pitching in with whatever level of civility they feel like. Something that might be problematic pops up without anyone voicing that it might be problematic, I go and voice that it might be problematic, no one mentions it again and it is left to the intelligence of everyone bearing witness to judge and learn from what happened. This is why I don’t go in depth with my perspectives on the first pass.

Step two. The other guy replied, and it doesn’t look like it really went anywhere. This is already a bad because now there are three total posts that can be read as confrontational (which is by default a bad thing for civil internet discussion) and it!s gotten even worse because clumping them all together makes it even more probable that they will be read disfavourably. And considering the initial problem of a thing being possibly problematic is also worse because not only has it not been clarified why it is problematic the problematic thing has been defended which mean we have lost another layer of the benefit-of-the-doubt internet discussion relies on. This is now under damage control. The priority objective is now to avoid the discussion being further derailed and every new post on this issue will now be potentially worsening the problem. By default, the best move would be taking the loss (of problematic thing not being properly addressed, as well as added on antagonism and obfuscation of problematic thing by defensiveness, I have made the discussion worse off at this point) and abandoning the endeavour entirely to let the thread get on track more naturally, and let the intelligence of everyone bearing witness again rationalise the judgements that need to be made.

Second option is providing clarification. If not enough clarification is provided attempt will be counter-productive. If too many words are used during clarification the risk of further responses worsens as overly long posts are associated more strongly with ranting and argumentativeness than otherwise within the context of internet discussions (considering the post isn’t the thread OP or a reply to the thread topic). To decide whether to pursue clarification the other party (respondent) is analysed. If they appear reasonable it is more likely that attempt will succeed, if they appear assertive or confrontational attempt WILL NOT succeed regardless of quality. Increased use of quotes during responses are correlated slightly with argumentativeness (From picking other party’s wording apart for flaws, which is correlated with a drive to be proven right in more aggressive respondents) If respondent does not provide sufficient behavioural data to estimate argumentativeness accurately both options are decided upon through a judgement call. (Note: Clarification attempts when sufficient behavioural data is not present should generally be avoided if not confident in allowing benefit-of-the-doubt)

Step three. Second post to provide clarification. There are now FOUR total posts at minimum. Length of clarification should be limited by allowed benefit-of-the-doubt to avoid further escalation. It is recommended to de-personalise clarification to avoid instinctive defensiveness. Strategies include using self as object of analysis to provide perspective on similarities and perspective, using a wider context of behaviour other than specifically the respondent  to depersonalise the discussion. Use respondent as inspiration for interpreting something else to provide wider perspectives rather than the respondent directly. Avoid interpreting the respondent other than what they “seem” outwardly like rather than theorising what they specifically are like. Superficial appearances are more important than theorizing intent because of context-less format of internet discusion.

Step four. Failure. Abandon efforts immediately to avoid further escalation. Analyse behaviour of respondent to learn more about reasons for failure. Analyse qualities of posts for flaws in wording and evidence of flawed decision making. Review events.
Correlations to antagonistic respondents found based on previous similar respondents:
Increased usage of quoting correlated with potential escalation behaviour, counterexamples exist and are eelavtively easy to distinguish from antagonistic behaviour.
Correlation between antagonistic behaviour and number of reply posts. Antagonistic individuals known to reply more frequently to every post involved in escalation events. Highly antagonistic individuals known to make multiple responding posts to every involved post rather than aggregating into a singular encompassing post, increasing the correlation between quantity of posts and devolution of civil discussion.
Antagonistic respondents known to show signs of antagonistic responses prior to case involvement. Not relevant to current case.
Antagonistic respondents known to create escalating posts even after a momentary separation of prior escalation after a passage of time or a number of non-related posts. Such behaviour is also correlated with above mentioned use of argument quoting.
At least two known other case exhibiting “misrepresentation” narrative despite efforts of de-personalisation during clarification and lack of prior mention of misrepresentation narrative outside of respondent. Behaviour associated with defensive personalisation of discussion. Avoid involvement if any signs of “misrepresentation narratives” behaviour are found with similar characteristics. Efforts made to provide wider context of interpretation to reduce emphasis on individual participants backfire on respondents who exhibit similar mindsets.
Topic repetition. More antagonistic respondents known to repeatedly bring up specific arguments and increased repetition is correlated with short term escalation as well as antagonistic behaviours. Antagonistic individuals known to increase escalation when more individuals are involved in escalation event.

Analyse involvement. Event case listed as failed involvement. Escalation was made more probably through involvement. Increase avoidance of involvement, re-evaluate benefit-of-the-doubt during future events.
Analysis of initial post under Step 1. Lack of explanation for objections possible cause for escalation to Step 2. Increase concise perspective context during Step 1.
Analysis of clarifying post under Step 2. Overly long. Estimated behaviour of respondent flawed. Escalation to Step 2 was a mistake. Opening sentence problematic and increased personalization, increasing risk of defensiveness. Should have goen with perspective context in the nature of thread first before mentioning behaviour of respondent.
Use of self as example as listed under depersonalisation strategies ineffective. Unknown if contributing factor to failure in clarification. Respondent edited escalation response with minor concessions and apologies. Clarification was marginally successful? Respondent editing indicative of less antagonistic behaviour and increased reasonableness. Benefit-of-the-doubt was not inaccurate. Escalation blamed on flawed clarification post.
Latter potion of clarification posts include hypothetical quotes to provide perspectives on mindsets. Flagged as potentially problematic, can be read sarcastically and as antagonism. Clarification post flagged as including elements of ranting. Flawed emotional state during clarification post. Emotional state must be better analysed and stabilized prior to any further at every step involvement. Oops.

Outcome of involvement. Attempts largely at fault for initiating escalation. Unknown if escalation risk might have manifested without involvement. Oops.

And that’s basically it as far as I can remember. The subtleties involved in these kinds of escalation are actually fairly complicated I have found, which is why I pay attention to those kinds of wording as being problematic in the first place. The best strategy I know is usually to assume I am somehow in the wrong because usually these kinds of escalations happens exactly because everyone constantly assumes they can’t be in the wrong so the only effective way to work against that is to counter that assumption within myself from the get go. Not that I think I’m “in the wrong” so to say but I just assume there is something I don’t realise or still need to learn about which leads my “side” to be at least as flawed as how flawed I want to think the other side is. This isn’t me saying both sides are always objectively equally flawed or anything, but working within that mindset helps with not making your side more flawed if nothing else and might help with de-escalation. It’s why I make a list of stuff that make “the other side” look like they are in the wrong to me like looking at post length or how pedantic they are or how much they personalize the issue about being about them or the person they’re arguing against specifically, so that I can look at that and say I don’t want people to be that way against me, so I should definitely avoid being that way about them and I can use those kinds of indicators to point at myself and say “I am in the wrong” using things I can see and quantify because otherwise compromise and admitting mistakes are way too difficult.

And if this new attempt at Step 5 doesn’t derail this argument I’ll go back to the drawing board.

Re: What things that make you quit reading a novel after serveral chapters?

#77
[This is no rant post]


Quote:Outcome of involvement. Attempts largely at fault for initiating escalation. Unknown if escalation risk might have manifested without involvement. Oops.



We're just humans:)
I must say I am quite impressed (in a positive way, I have to precise this, else someone could possibly misunderstand) by this wall of paragraphs (Grade 12, 1671 words, HA)


Quote:as confrontational (which is by default a bad thing for civil internet discussion

That's interesting because I like confrontational posts that aren't insulting. I have had a lot of heated discussion with people (over gaming topics etc) where the tone was challenging but civil, meaning that people defended their views with passion without resorting to criticize the opponent's mental ability/character. After an argument, I still upvote people whose views I don't share.



Quote:discussion being further derailed and every new post on this issue will now be potentially worsening the problem. B

Where you once a mod? (this is again not meant as an insult, more as a compliment)



Quote:Increased use of quotes during responses are correlated slightly with argumentativeness (From picking other party’s wording apart for flaws, which is correlated with a drive to be proven right in more aggressive respondents)

I agree there. Before you now say anything about me quoting you so much, you wrote an essay; it's hard to keep clear what I want to discuss without referring to one of your thoughts.


Yes, some people are more argumentative. I have studied philosophy, and I am more argumentative. I use neutral language and am not afraid of being wrongly misunderstood since at most I need to clarify again what I meant to say. I don't ponder hours about every phrase because time is the most important good.


Quote:) If respondent does not provide sufficient behavioural data to estimate argumentativeness accurately both options are decided upon through a judgement call.

So your algorithm categorized me as unreasonable after 2 posts -.-



Quote:“misrepresentation” narrative despite efforts of de-personalisation during clarification and lack of prior mention of misrepresentation narrative outside of respondent.

Misrepresentation is common in any domain and has nothing to do with discussions per se. There is a difference between willing misrepresentation and by mistake. In my case, I did not question your character, and in my experience, unless you are debating a political subject, people misrepresent your opinion because they wrongly understood what you meant to say. This is exceedingly common in every academic setting, for example, Sartre was known for misrepresenting Heidegger, though not willingly.


And, yes you were indeed not clear what you meant to say or you misrepresented me (unwillingly), or I misunderstood what you meant to say, for I was never speaking about his personal experience, but suddenly your posts were all about experiences, a topic I wasn't even discussing (!!!) [sorry for the exclamations marks]

Re: What things that make you quit reading a novel after serveral chapters?

#79

LordRhyolith Wrote: I lose interest/ stop reading when...
  • Stories that have too many protagonists. I mean too many side-characters that get so much screen time that the main characters slowly lose his presence.




  • I'm curious about too many side-characters and what your limit is? Do you mean you prefer a first-person narrative or when the story follows a side character for too long? I use a lot of side character perspectives in a scene but it still revolves around the MC just trying to spice things up with variety. 

    Re: What things that make you quit reading a novel after serveral chapters?

    #80

    Aegisark Wrote: I'm curious about too many side-characters and what your limit is? Do you mean you prefer a first-person narrative or when the story follows a side character for too long? I use a lot of side character perspectives in a scene but it still revolves around the MC just trying to spice things up with variety.



    The thing which came to my mind immediately was The Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan, where the different main and side characters took up so much time the story had slowed down to a crawl until, at the end, all the threads were pulled together again.