• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

What are your storytelling pet peeves?

Wanara009

Troubadour
Well, to be fair, most of it is just bad writing. It sorta goes without saying, I think.

I kinda assumed this was about "things we can technically get away with, but which still kinda annoys us."

Anders, don't get me wrong. There are a lot of work I liked that commits one or more things in the list I made. The way I see them, they are a mark of bad writing, yes, but that doesn't mean a work containing them can't be good.

There are authors that can get away with what I listed though. One of the best example I could think of Gary Stu character is Batman. Yes, that Batman. Remember, Batman isn't just a vigilante trained in all manner of martial art, he is also a genius, and a detective. If we go certain incarnations outside the comics, I say he's about 20-30 years old, certainly not enough time to develop all those skills to the degree he exhibited. Yet I sometimes pick up Batman material and liked it, despite the Gary Stu characteristic.

An example of Deus Ex Machina I liked can be found the Power Ranger Wild Force (yes, I like Power Rangers--stop laughing--but stopped watching after Wild Force) where a Zord is introduced and beat the arc's antagonist. Even though it annoyed the hell out if me, I liked the overall story of the season to make me to forgive it.

I think most of my pet peeves are things writers, bad or good, can get away with. It's just I can bring myself to forgive good writers because they can execute it well. If a bad writer try to do it though, the only way to execute them is with a firing squad.
 
Last edited:

VanClash

Scribe
I've only really seen my pet peeve in TV - but I guess thats a form of storytelling.

I hate it when the MC tries something and then they fail by just doing something stupid (e.g. not waiting for some glue to dry), but instead of just trying it again, they do some other elaborate scheme. That's then the whole plot of the story. It really annoys me.
 

Philip Overby

Staff
Article Team
I don't have pet peeves when reading anything. If I don't like something, I stop reading it. Therefore, I'm not exposed to anything long enough for it to affect me in anyway. That said, I rarely pick up anything that I don't like. I've been lucky in my choices I suppose. :)
 

JCFarnham

Auror
I have a few, but only because they're so damn common these days I can't turn my back on writers for a second.

I also managed to debunk them all on my blog. Practical upshot, it's just like Wanara009 said: Just because a piece of fiction has one or more of my peeves in it doesn't mean it has to fail. Look at the recent top three most successful YA books turned movies. Need I say more. Someone liked them enough to shower the writers with "untold riches" (or not, but I think you get my point).

Bad writing is bad writing, and while our peeves are more common in bad writing than good writing the two aren't mutually exclusive. Not by a long shot.
 
Anders, don't get me wrong. There are a lot of work I liked that commits one or more things in the list I made. The way I see them, they are a mark of bad writing, yes, but that doesn't mean a work containing them can't be good.

No no, I got what you meant. My comment was directed less at you and more at Zireael - of course we all agree with your peeves, because they're all things we're not supposed to do. I just thought it was kinda obvious.

There are authors that can get away with what I listed though. One of the best example I could think of Gary Stu character is Batman. Yes, that Batman. Remember, Batman isn't just a vigilante trained in all manner of martial art, he is also a genius, and a detective. If we go certain incarnations outside the comics, I say he's about 20-30 years old, certainly not enough time to develop all those skills to the degree he exhibited. Yet I sometimes pick up Batman material and liked it, despite the Gary Stu characteristic.

Batman isn't really a Mary Sue (usually) because he's normally portrayed with a mix of likable and unlikable traits, and he doesn't enjoy much out-right admiration even by superhero standards.

I've mentioned this before (many times, and at lenght), but Mary Sue does not mean "extremely skilled/poweful" or "impossibly perfect." That can be a trait of the Mary Sue but it's just a symptom, not the disease itself. What makes a character a Mary Sue has more to do with how the rest of the characters relate to her, and how she relates to the author.

An example of Deus Ex Machina I liked can be found the Power Ranger Wild Force (yes, I like Power Rangers--stop laughing--but stopped watching after Wild Force) where a Zord is introduced and beat the arc's antagonist. Even though it annoyed the hell out if me, I liked the overall story of the season to make me to forgive it.

Eh, I've seen amazingly blatant deus ex machina that I absolutely loved. But then I don't hate anything on principle.
 
Last edited:
Mine are the "idiot ball" and "status quo is God".
Never knew what an "idiot ball" was before, but now that I know that is the WORSE THING EVER!!!

I mean, I don't particularly care for people being stupid even when they are stupid, but when people are uncharacteristically stupid for no reason other than the writer's will--that really grinds my gears.

Still, that's more of a consistency thing. I feel that characters and settings and everything else should be internally consistent.

I guess mine would be status quo and character who don't live up to their potential.

A good example of the later would be Draco Malfoy. Dude spends most of his series being a jackass bully, then gets some character development by being placed in a major moral conflict, and he's clearly torn between his loyalty to his family and the increasingly obvious fact that they've chosen the wrong side, and finally... nothing. He doesn't turn completely evil, he doesn't join the fight for good, he just keeps being the same morally weak and kinda cowarly guy he's always been. That, I think, was kind of a letdown.
What a great criticism! I hated that about Draco as well but I never expressed it or thought about it! It's just been lurking in the part of my brain that will eventually be an aneurism.

I'll probably end up doing this with my current project. My heroine just doesn't have time to spend years training to catch up with everyone else. >_>

She's basically a genius, though, and even then it's not so much a matter of "instantly becoming the best fighter around" as much as "getting into fights with people way out of her league and somehow managing to stay alive."
Personally I don't really have a problem with this if it's plausible. Some people are just natural athletes. I've seen people do amazing things the first time they pick up a weapon and I've seen others that learn ridiculously quickly. I don't think it's plausible to go from invalid to peerless in no time, but someone that's had other athletic training, is a natural and quick athletic learner should have no problem progressing from no talent to very good in a relatively short amount of time.

For instance, in the SCA, there are people that win the royal tournament in their first year or two of the sport and then there are people that never get knighted after 20 years of playing. Although there is a service/networking aspect of becoming a knight, fighting skill is a necessity.

You have to be open to the fact that writers are going to want to tell you a story and although you can have success with a "normal" person, it makes more sense to write about something extraordinary, whether that is the circumstances someone is thrust into or the characters themselves or both or whatever. If a character is able to become powerful over a short period of time, then I usually assume they are the exception or that there is something special about them. Maybe it's destiny, maybe they're part-god, maybe they're just really frikkin' lucky (so long as it's not overdone), but there's something about them that is exceptional and I can accept those exceptional characteristics happening so long as they are consistent and not Deus ex Machina-y.

Wait, how is this a problem? Normally, the complaint is that the heroes are so overpowered, the villains cannot actually put up a realistic fight without some kind of deus ex machina. (See: Superman, kryptonite.) But if the antagonists are legitimately powerful enough to still be a threat, that ought to be a good thing, right?
I second the question. I'm perfectly fine with heroes being overpowered so long as they have appropriately challenging opponents. It's epic-level D&D compared to 1st level. The scales and what you are able to accomplish at levels 20+ are much larger and grander than what you can do at level 1.

For instance, I wouldn't mind seeing what would have happened in an actual fight with Sauron in LotR as opposed to breaking his phylactery or whatever.
 

Ghost

Inkling
I hate when the character is rendered unconscious. While he's sleeping his situation changes dramatically. Sometimes, important choices are made for the character and when he wakes up he tells us through his reflections on the events or another character tells him. It's lazy. I'm sure it can be done successfully, but the way I've seen it done is always lacking.

I recently watched two movies where the main characters were passive nitwits, which is bad enough, but they kept abandoning people. There'd be a battle, and the MC would just leave people to fend for themselves. There'd be a monster approaching and someone defends the MC, which is a poor choice because the MC just leaves the other person hanging to save her own skin. ARGH! I'd chalk it up to poor characterization, but the author/moviemakers try to tell us these are good people when really they're spineless jerks.

One of those was a horror movie and this complaint is more applicable to that genre and medium. Why does an entire plot have to hinge on people doing stupid, reckless things? If they'd just stick together, they'd be fine. But no, MC has a "solution" that even a 4-year-old would find idiotic. As a viewer, I want to root for the characters. They can make smart decisions that backfire or things can spiral out of their control, but watching them make mistake after mistake for the sake of tension is not fun.
 

Philip Overby

Staff
Article Team
I don't quite understand people's obsession with this whole Gary Sue/Mary Sue thing. I always see that everywhere. If a character resonates with people in some way, then it doesn't matter if they're cliche' or overpowered or whatever. There may be tons of characters or story plots that fit perfectly into the TV Tropes Method of Identification (TM), but some work and some don't. There is no perfect character and there is no perfect story. Someone will find fault with something one way or another.
 
I don't quite understand people's obsession with this whole Gary Sue/Mary Sue thing. I always see that everywhere. If a character resonates with people in some way, then it doesn't matter if they're cliche' or overpowered or whatever. There may be tons of characters or story plots that fit perfectly into the TV Tropes Method of Identification (TM), but some work and some don't. There is no perfect character and there is no perfect story. Someone will find fault with something one way or another.
Originally, Mary Sue characters were seen as "wish-fulfillment" for the author. Basically, you write yourself into the story, but instead of you, it's a super-awesome version of you that is just awesome at everything for the sake of being awesome. If done poorly, which I think the actual trope when done is hard to do un-poorly, then people are going to get their backs up about it. On the other hand, characters that are naturally talented or charismatic do not necessarily fall into this trope. In fact, just by labeling something a "Mary Sue", you are basically saying that it is done badly.

That's my takeaway anyway.

Joss Whedon made an interesting attempt to explain the horror movie idiot ball in "Cabin in the Woods."
I haven't seen it, although I've heard nothing but good things. Does he do that with the movie itself or in the documentary to the movie?
 

BWFoster78

Myth Weaver
I think my biggest pet peeve in storytelling are the parts where the writing becomes transparent, especially when the plot seems contrived just to create tension instead of a natural outgrowth of the characters and situation.
 

SeverinR

Vala
Here's a list of what makes me angry:



- To quote Yahtzee: "Supercilicous badass action girl showing off more flesh than a surgeon's convention." Also while I'm at it, impractical female armour that aim to show off skin rather than actually protect.

- Female characters conforming to one body type: model-thin with big boobs. Also while I'm at it, Female characters that don't serve any other purpose other than be paired off, suffer at the hand of the protagonist, need rescuing, or die.

- Sex scenes that blindside me with its abruptness and will be never mentioned again.


- An Author that deliberately make his character do something stupid so s/he could further the plot AKA "Idiot Plot".

I still have a lot more but they invoke pity rather than anger. This is something that I acquire after my years of trawling through fictionpress .com and fanfiction .net

Female hot skimpy outfit warrior, thin revealing princess type, are irratating, but also the opposites:
the plump he-woman that is lovable but not appealing to anyone, the female equivalent to an ogre that people are happy to see get killed.
"Now really, it's rude enough being alive when no one wants you..."
the dark evil intelligent woman that has no options but to use sexuality to trap the good characters, and they can't see through the plot/ploy.

Most recent is the plot driving the story rather then the characters. Chars do something stupid or totally ooc so they arrive at spot the author wanted in an unrealistic turn of events. (like fleeing a fight you are winning. or going against common sense or training to do something just to get person killed or captured.)

The invincible warrior that killed more then 10 men by himself surrenders to equal number or less men for no obvious reason. (playing to plot rather then to realism.) Author wants them captured so hero surrenders.

Sex scenes; it is gratuitous sex scenes, just to see women getting naked or partially naked, not much different then the scantly dressed armored female fighter. It's not to further the story it's just to throw some erotic moments into a story.
I might even consider it an abuse of power by the writer, I can make anyone have sex I want for no reason.

Just thought of another;
the virgin slayer lottery; any woman of virtue can be sacrificed to god or dragon in a lottery. Why would a woman remain virtuous if it might get her killed? Why wait for marriage when it might cost them their lives. Seems like a loving father would make sure their daughter never qualified for the lottery.


***Very few virgin stories ever say how they know without looking, and even that could be fallable.
I have one way in my stories, the unicorn, or its horn can tell a virgin. The unicorn is nauseated around unpure, and if a unicorn horn touches one unpure it makes them severely nauseated. (My unicorns comunicate with touch telepathy, to communicate the being must touch, so the unpure really can't "hear" the unicorn mentally speak.)
 
Last edited:
I don't quite understand people's obsession with this whole Gary Sue/Mary Sue thing. I always see that everywhere. If a character resonates with people in some way, then it doesn't matter if they're cliche' or overpowered or whatever. There may be tons of characters or story plots that fit perfectly into the TV Tropes Method of Identification (TM), but some work and some don't. There is no perfect character and there is no perfect story. Someone will find fault with something one way or another.

It's because most people misundertand what a Mary Sue is, so they complain about characters they think are Mary Sue but actually aren't. It's really a very specific type of bad writing.

Originally, Mary Sue characters were seen as "wish-fulfillment" for the author. Basically, you write yourself into the story, but instead of you, it's a super-awesome version of you that is just awesome at everything for the sake of being awesome.

Close, but not quite. Writing a Mary Sue isn't just a power fantasy. Power fantasies can be enjoyable, after all, if written well. And even bad power fantasies don't necessarily make your self-insert a Mary Sue.

Writing a Mary Sue is more about boosting your own ego via copious amounts of self-gratification, usually in a very heavy-handed and obvious way. It's about giving yourself everything that you feel you deserve. Rather than writing your self-insert as a better person than you are, you downplay your flaws an exaggerate (what you consider to be) your good sides. You skew the story to put your self-insert in a better light.

Mary Sue isn't popular and loved because she is perfect and good and powerful and all-around likable. Because, you know, that actually makes sense. No, Mary Sue is popular because she is you and you believe that you deserve to be that popular. Not some theoretical better version of you, but you the way you actually are.

Alternatively, when you write about things that makes you angry or anything you consider unfair ("Why can't I get a girlfriend!?") you write Mary Sue is a victim of some great injustice, because you feel victimized. Nothing bad that happens is ever Mary Sue's fault, because that means admitting you yourelf are to blame, even partially. No, Mary Sue is clearly being oppressed by corrupt authorities or bullied by bad people who obviously have no good sides whatsoever. This in turn serves as justification for the (often disproportional) revenge Mary Sue will then administer. (The same revenge you wish you could administer yourself in real life if you weren't such an amazingly nice person.)

It goes on like that. Everyone in the story agrees Mary Sue has excellent taste and profound opinions, because they are your taste and opinions. Mary Sue is a mysterious loner/special snowflake who is difficult to approach but a great person when you get to know her, because that makes you feel better about being kind of a social pariah at your high school. Mary Sue was unjustly beaten by her cruel guardians, because you figure that is roughly the emotional equivalent of you being grounded, etc.

And yes, Mary Sue may indeed be amazingly powerful or talented, especially if the writer happens to feel weak and powerless and has generally bad confidence. But there's a differance between that and writing a character who is ligitimately impressive for narrative reasons, and you can usually tell.
 
Just thought of another;
the virgin slayer lottery; any woman of virtue can be sacrificed to god or dragon in a lottery. Why would a woman remain virtuous if it might get her killed? Why wait for marriage when it might cost them their lives.

Oh God, I really reacted to that in the movie Dragonslayer.

So the virgins of the kingdom must all take part in a lottery where the winner gets to be eaten by a dragon. The female love interest goes as far as dressing up as a boy to dodge her social responsibility. About halfway through the movie she and the hero are pretty obviously in love, but she is found out and forced to take part of the lottery. They're like: "Oh no! What do we do?"

I was like: "Look, you two. You're young, you're reasonably attractive, you clearly like each other very much and will probably get married down the line anyway... What I'm trying to say is, there is a pretty obvious solution to this problem, okay?"

Why is it still even possible to find virgin women in this kingdom? For goodness sake, at the very least any healthy straight male would have figured this out. And if pre-marital sex isn't acceptable, well, get married first. It's better than being eaten.
 
Last edited:

Mindfire

Istar
Why is it still even possible to find virgin women in this kingdom? For goodness sake, at the very least any healthy straight male would have figured this out.

Heh. I can see the pick-up lines now.

"Look, babe. I wanna get laid, you don't wanna get eaten. Let's help each other out."

:D This could be the makings of a great comedy.
 

Wynnara

Minstrel
I know this is a fantasy hallmark, but I've always hated prophecy as a storytelling device.

For one thing, I don't like essentially being told at the beginning how the story is going to end. I also dislike the notion of removing people's free will. I like the idea that you really don't know what happens next... no one does... and that the action or inaction of one person can radically alter the story.

Again, don't shoot me... just personal preference... :)
 
I know this is a fantasy hallmark, but I've always hated prophecy as a storytelling device.

For one thing, I don't like essentially being told at the beginning how the story is going to end. I also dislike the notion of removing people's free will. I like the idea that you really don't know what happens next... no one does... and that the action or inaction of one person can radically alter the story.

Again, don't shoot me... just personal preference... :)

It... depends a bit on how you use the prophecy, I'd say, and how prophecies actually work in your setting.

It varies a bit depending on wether you are taking the strictly fatalistic approach ("This is what's going to happen and there's nothing you can do about it.") or using prophesies are warnings for something avoidable. ("Do this, but don't do this, or something bad will happen.") It also varies depending on what kind of culture you are dealing with: For example, the vikings were extremely fatalistic in general so a viking-inspired culture would take prophecies very seriously. Additionally, there are various ways to subvert the trope.

Over-all, I think it can be a useful plot device - my current project will probably involve prophecies in order to set up some events that need to have occured. Another idea I had involved prophecy as a by-product of time travel. Then I had a short-lived comic project where prophecies were essentially backwards memories: They would always come true, but there where a lot of them and they were about as reliable as someone trying to recall a childhood event. The plot started with a character trying to make a prophecy come true on purpose, failing, and accidentally fullfilling a different prophecy.

On the other hand, one should take care not to resort to it out of simple lazyness. ("This ordinary farm-boy is the hero who will defeat Lord Dark, because the prophesy said so.")

One thing I do object to is stories where the plot heavily relies on a prophesy, but prophecies and prophets are not a thing in the setting otherwise. I think that if there's an actual prophecy at work, that implies some people in this setting can actually predict the future with some accuracy and that needs to be taken into consideration.
 
Last edited:
Top