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

What are your storytelling pet peeves?

Bad writing - obviously

But to do with the story or characters:
Promises that don't get for filled.
Writers who have no ideas what they're writing about
The Villain that is just pure evil, and the hero that is just pure good.
Heart-breaking backstories for the characters just to make us sympathise.
Books without much originality, and are just shadows of more famous books.
 
The Villain that is just pure evil, and the hero that is just pure good.

I get pure evil, but what's wrong with being pure good?

I mean, "I am evil for the sake of evil" doesn't make sense as a realistic motivation. But being good because that is desirable in and of itself is definitely possible and, indeed, the best reason to be a good person.
 

Chilari

Staff
Moderator
Heart-breaking backstories for the characters just to make us sympathise.

Urgh, tell me about it. Putting a character through some tragedy, either in the story or as backstory, solely in an attempt to get an emotional response from the reader is so annoying. If you're writing something "for the feels" and not because it is what the story needs and what would reasonably and believably happen in the circumstances, then you're writing it for the wrong reasons and it will fall flat. Not to say that tragedy and pain shouldn't happen to characters, just that it should not be aimed primarily at provoking an emotional response in the reader.
 
Super morally righteous MC's. Obviously if your MC is fighting for the 'goodies' he/she needs to be good in most cases, but I'm talking about the irritating goody two shoe types. For example, there's a massive battle going on and the MC tells his best buddy not to slay the demon because actually deep down he's a nice guy and only murdered thousands of people because he was misunderstood and bullied at school. Slightly over the top example, but I think overly good good guys are very boring.

I'm sorta the other way around - I like characters who have principles they don't want to compromise, characters who insist that virtues apply even when they are inconvenient. Those are the characters who are the most interesting because they are the ones who are constantly tested, and also the ones who put others to the test.

To me, the boring characters are the ones who always compromise when faced with a moral dilemma, because they lack the conviction to pick the difficult option - "It's not like I want to execute the prisoners who surrendered, but we can't take them with us." Or: "I don't want to torture this man, but how else are we going to find the villain's stronghold?" Or: "I don't want to kill this innocent person, but if we don't many more will die."

See, if you are a person without strong moral principles, these are all easy choices to make. Unpleasant, perhaps, but usually easy.

But then someone puts his foot down and goes: "No, we're not doing any of those things, because it's wrong and we're better than that. We find another way, or we make another way, but here is where we draw the line and here is where we hold it." That's when things get interesting, because now the heroes have to work even harder to win.
 
Last edited:

Nihal

Vala
The Idiot Ball don't bother me that much. People are stupid, sometimes they really do pretty much stupid things even if they aren't complete morons. Of course, it depends on what exactly the character does, but I guess I didn't stumble upon this flaw too many times, I still have a high tolerance to it.

The opposite annoys me. It's how some characters plans works brilliantly on the first try, if not with a small and insignificant adaptation to the ever changing situation. Characters who are lucky genius. They almost never fail, misunderstand a clue, slip and fall on their asses, nothing. They never get fooled by anyone, except for the great villain, but only sometimes and it's not that serious.
 
Explicit leaps of logic. That is, when a character gets on a stump and says "It can't be A so it absolutely must be C" when there's no reason in the world that B (and D) couldn't exist. And it feels like the author believes the reasoning is good and really wants to show his "work" off. (Now if it's the character who got it wrong, and then pays for it, that's better.)
 
The Idiot Ball don't bother me that much. People are stupid, sometimes they really do pretty much stupid things even if they aren't complete morons. Of course, it depends on what exactly the character does, but I guess I didn't stumble upon this flaw too many times, I still have a high tolerance to it.

On another forum I frequent, we tend to talk about CIS and PIS.

CIS is Character Induced Stupidity. This is whenever the character does something stupid because the story actually establishes this person to be kind of an idiot. This is considered acceptable - of course stupid people will do stupid things.

PIS is Plot Induced Stupidity. This is whenever a character does something stupid because the plot demands it, even though the character has been established to be smart enough to know better. This is considered a type of bad writing, or at least very lazy.
 

Nihal

Vala
On another forum I frequent, we tend to talk about CIS and PIS.

CIS is Character Induced Stupidity. This is whenever the character does something stupid because the story actually establishes this person to be kind of an idiot. This is considered acceptable - of course stupid people will do stupid things.

PIS is Plot Induced Stupidity. This is whenever a character does something stupid because the plot demands it, even though the character has been established to be smart enough to know better. This is considered a type of bad writing, or at least very lazy.

Yes! But even when the plot benefits from the smart character's stupidity it can work well enough if done properly. A smart character still isn't foolproof, all the factors involved including his emotional state and how much of the situation he knows can make him act inadequately.

I'm not saying that it's not bad when it's badly done, it is, however I find this more believable than all-knowing characters. People are more likely to misunderstand something than to be almost omniscience and lucky.

The opposite are the explicit leaps of logic (and all it's annoying cousins), mentioned by wordwalker. From all the possibilities the character picks the right one, no matter how crazy it is or how many other better explanations there may be. And he'll be right, of course. Some authors seems to think that "intelligence" include sixth sense and perfect mind reading abilities.

Between the two cases the last one bothers me more, for it's lower probability to happen.
 

Mindfire

Istar
Yes! But even when the plot benefits from the smart character's stupidity it can work well enough if done properly. A smart character still isn't foolproof, all the factors involved including his emotional state and how much of the situation he knows can make him act inadequately.

I'm not saying that it's not bad when it's badly done, it is, however I find this more believable than all-knowing characters. People are more likely to misunderstand something than to be almost omniscience and lucky.

The opposite are the explicit leaps of logic (and all it's annoying cousins), mentioned by wordwalker. From all the possibilities the character picks the right one, no matter how crazy it is or how many other better explanations there may be. And he'll be right, of course. Some authors seems to think that "intelligence" include sixth sense and perfect mind reading abilities.

Between the two cases the last one bothers me more, for it's lower probability to happen.

I'm kinda the opposite. I hate it when a character does something transparently stupid for any reason. (But then again, I hate it when people do stupid things in real life too.) But when it's obviously done just so the plot can move forward, I hate it even more. If a character is going to make a bad decision, I'd prefer it to be because all the facts weren't available (not because they were too lazy to get the facts, like in every romantic comedy ever), or because they knew the decision was potentially bad but thought the possible benefit was worth the risk, or because they didn't have time to think it over, or because they were selfish, etc. Not because they just had a brain fart.

I'm also wary of having my characters act for purely emotional reasons. Or if they do, it's usually to act as foil for a more logical character.
 

BenGoram

Dreamer
Does anyone remember Enemy of the State? Will Smith's character makes dumb mistakes throughout the movie, never listens to advice he's being given, and then at the end masterfully pulls off a plan that defies the odds and saves the day. More of a case of writing yourself into a corner than Idiot Ball, though.
 
Top