forum Things You Want LESS Of In Books
Started by @HighPockets group
tune

people_alt 109 followers

@Starfast group

It's not actually uncommon. I was an extremely mature child.
But I do think it should be situational. It needs to be explained why they are how they are. Not just random.

I feel like I need to elaborate more on this character that I mentioned in my previous post, just for context. I know that some kids can be super smart, and mature for their age but this character just doesn't feel realistic to me. I haven't really met a lot of child geniuses, but the people that I have known who were smart for their age would still talk like most people would at that age. That's kind of why that bit of dialogue that I shared felt so weird to me. I have a hard time believing that a nine year old, regardless of how smart they are, would say that. And it was totally unprompted too? Like she just said that.

IMO, she's just a poorly written character. She wouldn't be the only that's poorly written in this book. In addition to basically being Socrates trapped inside the body of a nine year old British girl, she's also good at everything, the most perfect child. It's kind of been established that this character is really smart. It was mentioned at one point that she was learning "simple algebra" at age 4 which sounds fake but ok. Since other people have mentioned it, no explanation has been given so far (Unless you want to accept the fact that she's being homeschooled as an explanation, but why are you teaching a 4 year old algebra?) It's also a realistic fiction novel so there's no magic or anything like that involved.
Oh and she's "not like most girls," because she doesn't like pretty/ girly clothing.

Btw, while we're on topic, if you're going to tell me that a character isn't like most girls, it better be followed up with something truly outrageous. Half the time it's just like "I'm not like most girls because I READ BOOKs and I DON'T WEAR MAKEUP!!1!" Like yeah, you and and millions of other girls out there. You're not that special.

tldr; I'm reading a book with a 9 year old Mary Sue character and I don't like it.

Edit: Neglected to mention that 150 pages in, we've yet to hear anything remotely negative about this character.

@HighPockets group

BAD BOYS IN GENERAL AS SO STEREOTYPICAL

YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm fine with characters who have issues and stuff, but….can they deal with them like normal people and not by punching walls and abusing their love interests?? Please???

@HighPockets group

Ok, here's another thing. I want less teens/children who talk like they're way older than they actually are. I always thought John Green was the worst offender of this, but I think I've found one that's actually worse. I'm reading a book where a character says:
"People try and make out there's a greater purpose, a secret meaning, that it means something. And it doesn't. We're a bunch of freaks. That's all there is too it. A big bunch of inconsequential freaks. We don't have to be happy. We don't have to be normal. We don't even have to be alive. We can do whatever we want as long as we don't hurt anyone."

This character is nine, by the way. What kind of nine year old would realistically say this? Did any of you at the age of nine years old know the word "inconsequential"? Let alone using it correctly in a sentence of pretentious philosophical bs? Because I sure didn't.

I'm ready to throw this book out a goddamn window

I agree. I mean, I'd consider myself a fairly intelligent and mature teenager, and I'll admit that I do speak and usually type in a very pretentious matter. So having one or two characters that are like this is fine to me, but when the whole cast seems like they belong in an Elizabethian court or chilling with Socrates, it gets annoying. Like yeah, I get it, there are kids out there who are smart, and who read classic literature with more flowery language and it rubs off on them a bit or maybe that's just me being weird but they're still gonna use slang, quotes, and pop culture references.

@HighPockets group

I'd love to see less of love interests being horrible and then both the character and the author excusing it as 'He's a guy!' or 'It was for Love Interest's own good!'
Cool motive, still abuse.

@Euric_Knight

^^Yeah yeah yeah cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool no doubt no doubt

Deleted user

One thing that annoys me is when a character is introduced and they are obviously a love interest and that's all they are seen as

Yes! Like, every time a female character is introduced into a mostly-male group their only purpose 90% of the time is to be the love interest! It's so stupid and in some instances, completely unnecessary! They just copy and paste the same generic romantic subplot and hope the fandom likes it!

@HighPockets group

One thing that annoys me is when a character is introduced and they are obviously a love interest and that's all they are seen as

Or when a character has no purpose beyond being a love interest…..

@HighPockets group

Hey, I found this yesterday and I thought it was cool! It's like the Bechdel Test but for LGBTQA+ characters!
I can't remember the name, but:

  1. The character has to actually identify as LGBTQA+
  2. The character is not solely defined by their sexuality or gender
  3. The character's removal would cause issues within the plot

Deleted user

What do you mean by number 1?? Can you specify? Does it mean like no subtext, or like no effeminate men (for example) who are clearly supposed to be gay but never show interest in another man?

@Starfast group

What do you mean by number 1??

My take away from it was that it has the character's sexuality actually has to be mentioned at some point. Like I know a lot of people have headcannons about certain characters being LGBT+ but it's never actually mentioned in the books that they are.
Or another example would be Dumbledore. He's gay according to JK Rowling, but it's never actually mentioned in the books.

@HighPockets group

What do you mean by number 1?? Can you specify? Does it mean like no subtext, or like no effeminate men (for example) who are clearly supposed to be gay but never show interest in another man?

Yeah, what Starfast said. It needs to either be on-page or all-but-confirmed. For example, in a fantasy or dystopian where labels might not really exist so it would be confirmed by a character saying something like "Are you a man or a woman?" "Oh, I'm not either of those."
Or
"Who are you interested in?" "Not really anyone. You?"

@HighPockets group

ALSO CAN I JUST SAY:
I hate hate hate hate the trope where no one has brown eyes (and sometimes no one has brown hair, but it's usually eyes)! I have brown hair and brown eyes and it's kinda annoying to be reading a book where everyone's eyes are blue, green, grey, and even purple, and NO ONE has brown eyes! I mostly see this in sci-fi and fantasy because then with technology/nonhuman races/magic a character with yellow, red, gold, or purple eyes isn't impossible/rare.

Deleted user

Brown eyes are just as sexy as other eyes. EVEN MORE SO ACTUALLY

#Browneyesaresexyasfuck2019

@HighPockets group

Brown eyes are just as sexy as other eyes. EVEN MORE SO ACTUALLY

#Browneyesaresexyasfuck2019

I love how in The Lunar Chronicles, Prince Kai (aka the dream crush of all of New Beijing's teenagers) has BROWN EYES! So do Cinder, Scarlet, and Winter!

Deleted user

Eris has brown eyes and no one can tell her that they aren't pretty because they are heated chocolaty goodness that burn with an inner fire of rage and sarcasm

@HighPockets group

Eris has brown eyes and no one can tell her that they aren't pretty because they are heated chocolaty goodness that burn with an inner fire of rage and sarcasm

Big mood.

@HighPockets group

Also like….there is no reason why a realistic fiction book has no brown eyed people? That's literally the most prominent eye color? And I'm guilty of having not a ton of brown eyed people but I try to have 2 or 3 per book