Reading/Book Pet Peeves

[alkira6]

That makes me glad for series like Harry Potter that had a well defined end to the series with an author that would not add any more to the series once it was done.

That was done on purpose so that she could definately say "No, sorry, all tied up, read the last book."  I found the ending dissapointing myself. Not because it tied up all the ends, but because it read like a fangirl rushed "And they all lived happily ever after" type ending.  Also, camping, too much camping.

[Lynn2000]

That reminds me of The Vampire Diaries.  A trilogy in the early 90's and I thought it ended really well with a bittersweet ending.  Then a 4th book came out.  Ok, that's fine even though I didn't think it was necessary.  It was like a visit with old friends. 

Almost twenty years later, the author continue it.  I didn't even bother reading after hearing some bad things about the new books.

This is an interesting point because I love the TV show, but apparently they changed a lot of things from the books, and are adding a lot of mythology that wasn't in the books at all. I have the books, but now I'm not sure if I even want to read them, because it sounds like I'll just get confused. Of course a lot of things change when adaptations are made, but in this case it seems like the show has become a different beast in its own right with new books based on the (differing) premise of the TV show, but still called Vampire Diaries. Actually I kind of like it when that happens--to me that's an indication that people really want to play in your universe and make it their own--but on the other hand it can be rather confusing to wade through all the different incarnations.

[violinp]

That makes me glad for series like Harry Potter that had a well defined end to the series with an author that would not add any more to the series once it was done.

That was done on purpose so that she could definately say "No, sorry, all tied up, read the last book."  I found the ending dissapointing myself. Not because it tied up all the ends, but because it read like a fangirl rushed "And they all lived happily ever after" type ending.  Also, camping, too much camping.

Rowling wrote the epilogue years before the last books were written (she'd said, I think, around Order of the Phoenix time, that she had the last chapter of what would be Deathly Hallows already written), so I think it was just too much of a tone change from the comparative darkness of the rest of the book for a lot of people. I loved it, but I understand why many people get annoyed or irritated by it.

[PeterM]

That makes me glad for series like Harry Potter that had a well defined end to the series with an author that would not add any more to the series once it was done.

I got a shiny nickel says there'll be more Harry Potter books within, say, ten years. I could be wrong - lord knows Rowling doesn't need the money - but I think there will be. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, if she sticks to fleshing out the world and the history rather than making it "Harry Potter and the Threat That's Even Worse Than Voldemort!"

[Shea]

That makes me glad for series like Harry Potter that had a well defined end to the series with an author that would not add any more to the series once it was done.

That was done on purpose so that she could definately say "No, sorry, all tied up, read the last book."  I found the ending dissapointing myself. Not because it tied up all the ends, but because it read like a fangirl rushed "And they all lived happily ever after" type ending.  Also, camping, too much camping.

There's a reason a fan nickname for the last book is Harry Potter and the Very Long Camping Trip .

I didn't mind all the camping, but that's probably because my tolerance for epics was shaped by reading The Lord of the Rings at a very young age (walking, walking, walking, running, walking, riding, fighting, riding, walking, walking, walking...)

[Piratelvr1121]

That makes me glad for series like Harry Potter that had a well defined end to the series with an author that would not add any more to the series once it was done.

That was done on purpose so that she could definately say "No, sorry, all tied up, read the last book."  I found the ending dissapointing myself. Not because it tied up all the ends, but because it read like a fangirl rushed "And they all lived happily ever after" type ending.  Also, camping, too much camping.

Rowling wrote the epilogue years before the last books were written (she'd said, I think, around Order of the Phoenix time, that she had the last chapter of what would be Deathly Hallows already written), so I think it was just too much of a tone change from the comparative darkness of the rest of the book for a lot of people. I loved it, but I understand why many people get annoyed or irritated by it.

I saw a discussion between Daniel Radcliffe and J.K. Rowling saying she went through a dark period I think during Prisoner of Azkaban where she was tempted to kill Ron, but changed her mind because she had originally meant for him to last through the series.    I do like the epilogue, as it didn't bother me and it was kinda nice seeing where they ended up.

And I wouldn't be upset if she did write little spinoffs in the future about different characters.  I'd be curious to hear how Teddy Lupin turned out.  Though without Voldemort it might be tough to come up with much for major conflict unless it's a character-driven story.

[Luci45]

That makes me glad for series like Harry Potter that had a well defined end to the series with an author that would not add any more to the series once it was done.

That was done on purpose so that she could definately say "No, sorry, all tied up, read the last book."  I found the ending dissapointing myself. Not because it tied up all the ends, but because it read like a fangirl rushed "And they all lived happily ever after" type ending.  Also, camping, too much camping.

There's a reason a fan nickname for the last book is Harry Potter and the Very Long Camping Trip .

I didn't mind all the camping, but that's probably because my tolerance for epics was shaped by reading The Lord of the Rings at a very young age (walking, walking, walking, running, walking, riding, fighting, riding, walking, walking, walking...)

And poems and walking and songs and...............I read them when I was in college, so 1963-1966 but before we got married. I read all four books, and really thought nothing stood up to the sweet and simple and adventurous The Hobbit.

One of the few clutters I regret parting with. Sigh.

[cabbageweevil]

That makes me glad for series like Harry Potter that had a well defined end to the series with an author that would not add any more to the series once it was done.

I got a shiny nickel says there'll be more Harry Potter books within, say, ten years. I could be wrong - lord knows Rowling doesn't need the money - but I think there will be. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, if she sticks to fleshing out the world and the history rather than making it "Harry Potter and the Threat That's Even Worse Than Voldemort!"

I concur here. Read and enjoyed the Potter books, though was never an ardent fan. I took the most pleasure, in the crazy and intricate world built by Rowling; more than in the IMO "identikit" and hackneyed titanic-struggle-between-good-and-evil-with-the-world's-fate-at-stake, or the character-interplay-and-development aspect.

[lady_disdain]

That makes me glad for series like Harry Potter that had a well defined end to the series with an author that would not add any more to the series once it was done.

I got a shiny nickel says there'll be more Harry Potter books within, say, ten years. I could be wrong - lord knows Rowling doesn't need the money - but I think there will be. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, if she sticks to fleshing out the world and the history rather than making it "Harry Potter and the Threat That's Even Worse Than Voldemort!"

I concur here. Read and enjoyed the Potter books, though was never an ardent fan. I took the most pleasure, in the crazy and intricate world built by Rowling; more than in the IMO "identikit" and hackneyed titanic-struggle-between-good-and-evil-with-the-world's-fate-at-stake, or the character-interplay-and-development aspect.

I loved the first books - they were intricate, quirky and the reader explored an amazing world with Harry. However, once the world was mostly fleshed out and the titanic struggle became the center issue, I thought they started getting worse. The angsty teenager Harry was also annoying and shows up at around the same time, so it was a double blow. I have only vague memories of the last book.

[Lynn2000]

Somewhat on the subject of Harry Potter, I think it's interesting (or perhaps inevitable) how one big success in publishing begets about a billion "knock-offs." Although children's books, and fantasy in particular, were certainly not dead or disrespected before Harry Potter came along, I don't think anyone thought of them as potential blockbusters. Post-Harry Potter, there are tons of children's fantasy series--I rarely see stand-alones anymore, and it's much more likely to find a big, colorful display of them at the bookstore, often unsubtly marked as "Looking for something to read after Harry Potter?"

Same with Twilight--there are now so many teen supernatural romances that they actually have a labeled section for it at my local chain bookstore, whereas not too long ago it was sort of the "weird" little subsection you didn't want to be seen in.

I actually don't consider this a pet peeve, I think it's kind of cool, because I tend to like books in those genres. Of course they vary a lot in quality, and I always wonder how many were fully-fleshed-out ideas that publishers are now receptive to, and how many were whipped up in focus group meetings...

[CoryanderX]

My pet peeve: When the entire book is about making you loathe a particular character, who's built up more and more as the most ridiculously awful, horrid, gratuitously mean person alive, and then at the climax, the protagonist finally has the chance to get revenge, or at the very least tell the person how unbelievably terrible they are...

And then right as the protagonist is about to FINALLY unleash some karma, they look into the villain's eyes and they realize that the villain only acts so awful because they're scared and pathetic, and telling them off won't really make the protagonist feel any better, and really the protagonist just feels sorry for them. So she just lets them go without so much as a single expletive. Often without the villain even realizing that they were in trouble.

I hate this so much. Real life (as these forums can attest) is full of having to swallow your irritation and accept that awful people are going to be awful and there's not much you can do about it. But if I've let my silly beach book spend 200 pages manipulating me into hating a character with all of my heart, I want it to end with some kind of satisfying consequences for them. Not a moral lecture about how it's better to just forgive someone who spends their life going out of their way to cause pain and suffering to others for no reason, because, you know, maybe their marriage is having some problems or something. And if you would enjoy getting revenge on that person, well, that would make you just as terrible as they are! Exactly equally terrible.

[Redwing]

My pet peeve: When the entire book is about making you loathe a particular character, who's built up more and more as the most ridiculously awful, horrid, gratuitously mean person alive, and then at the climax, the protagonist finally has the chance to get revenge, or at the very least tell the person how unbelievably terrible they are...

And then right as the protagonist is about to FINALLY unleash some karma, they look into the villain's eyes and they realize that the villain only acts so awful because they're scared and pathetic, and telling them off won't really make the protagonist feel any better, and really the protagonist just feels sorry for them. So she just lets them go without so much as a single expletive. Often without the villain even realizing that they were in trouble.

I hate this so much. Real life (as these forums can attest) is full of having to swallow your irritation and accept that awful people are going to be awful and there's not much you can do about it. But if I've let my silly beach book spend 200 pages manipulating me into hating a character with all of my heart, I want it to end with some kind of satisfying consequences for them. Not a moral lecture about how it's better to just forgive someone who spends their life going out of their way to cause pain and suffering to others for no reason, because, you know, maybe their marriage is having some problems or something. And if you would enjoy getting revenge on that person, well, that would make you just as terrible as they are! Exactly equally terrible.

I am so with you on this one.  I feel manipulated and I don't like that feeling.  If there is a reason the person is horrible than give me some back story before you spring it on me at the end!

[snowflake]

My pet peeve: When the entire book is about making you loathe a particular character, who's built up more and more as the most ridiculously awful, horrid, gratuitously mean person alive, and then at the climax, the protagonist finally has the chance to get revenge, or at the very least tell the person how unbelievably terrible they are...

And then right as the protagonist is about to FINALLY unleash some karma, they look into the villain's eyes and they realize that the villain only acts so awful because they're scared and pathetic, and telling them off won't really make the protagonist feel any better, and really the protagonist just feels sorry for them. So she just lets them go without so much as a single expletive. Often without the villain even realizing that they were in trouble.

I hate this so much. Real life (as these forums can attest) is full of having to swallow your irritation and accept that awful people are going to be awful and there's not much you can do about it. But if I've let my silly beach book spend 200 pages manipulating me into hating a character with all of my heart, I want it to end with some kind of satisfying consequences for them. Not a moral lecture about how it's better to just forgive someone who spends their life going out of their way to cause pain and suffering to others for no reason, because, you know, maybe their marriage is having some problems or something. And if you would enjoy getting revenge on that person, well, that would make you just as terrible as they are! Exactly equally terrible.

Just as a spin off, I hate it when a book builds up loathing of a character by having said character commit crimes against humanity and then try and make them sympathetic by throwing in some trauma in their past.  I just read something where the villain had a rapey streak.  He preyed on men with low self-esteem sexually even when they said they didn't want to be with him anymore.  Towards the end it is revealed that he was molested so apparently it's alright!   

Um no.  Even though that's sad and all, I don't like seeing someone torture and abuse for two decades and then walk off scot-free.  Oh, and have a story-book wedding because there was a self-sacrificing woman who "loved him enough" and is going to heal him on their country estate (after the men he preyed on marry their sweethearts who are going to love the trauma away.)

I guess that makes me Judgy McJudgersons and just not bleeding heart enough according to the author.  But dude, I was really sort of hoping it was going to end with the self-sacrificing woman giving him a lesson of a different sort.

[cabbageweevil]

That makes me glad for series like Harry Potter that had a well defined end to the series with an author that would not add any more to the series once it was done.

I got a shiny nickel says there'll be more Harry Potter books within, say, ten years. I could be wrong - lord knows Rowling doesn't need the money - but I think there will be. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, if she sticks to fleshing out the world and the history rather than making it "Harry Potter and the Threat That's Even Worse Than Voldemort!"

I concur here. Read and enjoyed the Potter books, though was never an ardent fan. I took the most pleasure, in the crazy and intricate world built by Rowling; more than in the IMO "identikit" and hackneyed titanic-struggle-between-good-and-evil-with-the-world's-fate-at-stake, or the character-interplay-and-development aspect.

I loved the first books - they were intricate, quirky and the reader explored an amazing world with Harry. However, once the world was mostly fleshed out and the titanic struggle became the center issue, I thought they started getting worse. The angsty teenager Harry was also annoying and shows up at around the same time, so it was a double blow. I have only vague memories of the last book.

And as time went on, the books not only started getting worse, they got -- in the main -- longer. I have to feel that the execution of the series is, basically, messy. I don't hold the austere view which some do, that any literary offering has to be a brief-and-spare masterpiece of jeweller's / watchmaker's minimalist precision, or else it's rubbish -- there is a place in literature for discursive-and-waffly works -- but "Potter" in the later books, just seemed to go off lengthily in all kinds of pointless blind-alley directions. I gather that Rowling has claimed that she had the entire content meticulously in mind, from a very early date: in this, frankly I don't believe her.

[LEMon]

That makes me glad for series like Harry Potter that had a well defined end to the series with an author that would not add any more to the series once it was done.

I got a shiny nickel says there'll be more Harry Potter books within, say, ten years. I could be wrong - lord knows Rowling doesn't need the money - but I think there will be. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, if she sticks to fleshing out the world and the history rather than making it "Harry Potter and the Threat That's Even Worse Than Voldemort!"

I concur here. Read and enjoyed the Potter books, though was never an ardent fan. I took the most pleasure, in the crazy and intricate world built by Rowling; more than in the IMO "identikit" and hackneyed titanic-struggle-between-good-and-evil-with-the-world's-fate-at-stake, or the character-interplay-and-development aspect.

I loved the first books - they were intricate, quirky and the reader explored an amazing world with Harry. However, once the world was mostly fleshed out and the titanic struggle became the center issue, I thought they started getting worse. The angsty teenager Harry was also annoying and shows up at around the same time, so it was a double blow. I have only vague memories of the last book.

And as time went on, the books not only started getting worse, they got -- in the main -- longer. I have to feel that the execution of the series is, basically, messy. I don't hold the austere view which some do, that any literary offering has to be a brief-and-spare masterpiece of jeweller's / watchmaker's minimalist precision, or else it's rubbish -- there is a place in literature for discursive-and-waffly works -- but "Potter" in the later books, just seemed to go off lengthily in all kinds of pointless blind-alley directions. I gather that Rowling has claimed that she had the entire content meticulously in mind, from a very early date: in this, frankly I don't believe her.

Sounds like how my stories grow: I get the base idea, then as time passes, the characters do other neat things in my mind, which lead to other neat things.  Then I have to remember what the real story is.  She just didn't cut out the extras.

Though by the final book, everyone was used to how big the last was and that the next would be larger.  But, come on already, enough camping.