The Instant Turn-Offs Thread

[KeithD]

I never fault a writer for liking subject matter I don't like. When I read a story I accept the author's own preferences and basic story goals and try to ask myself whether the author accomplished their own purposes or could have done so more effectively.

This is key to critiquing someone else's work.

 

[JCSTREET]

You left out stories that the spelling is terrible.

which I've hear equally-cited as a turn-off for women reading men's dating profiles online - not that every eligible guy can necessarily master straitjacket (just remember Hormuz) and linchpin (which owes nothing to the crime of lynching)

 

[KeithD]

which I've hear equally-cited as a turn-off for women reading men's dating profiles online - not that every eligible guy can necessarily master straitjacket (just remember Hormuz) and linchpin (which owes nothing to the crime of lynching)

It would probably be best to avoid connecting with guys who use those words in their dating service profiles anyway.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I agree that I'd rather not hear from a critic of my story if all they have to say is, in effect, that they don't like this type of story. That tells me a little bit about the critic, but nothing about my story.

Agree. I don't mind a sensible critique, but I really don't care about someone's preferences. "If you don't like my stuff, why did you keep reading, numb nuts?"

 

[110kelviinisstillprettycold]

This is an interesting peeve, one with which I agree in a way and disagree in a way.

I agree that I'd rather not hear from a critic of my story if all they have to say is, in effect, that they don't like this type of story. That tells me a little bit about the critic, but nothing about my story.

But as a critic I think it's perfectly fine to critique a story outside my own preferences, because I feel I can be more objective. I never fault a writer for liking subject matter I don't like. When I read a story I accept the author's own preferences and basic story goals and try to ask myself whether the author accomplished their own purposes or could have done so more effectively. In some ways I think it's easier to do that analysis when one is critiquing outside one's own preferences, because one is less likely to say, in effect, "I would have done this differently," which, again, is not helpful criticism.

FWIW, I don't think it's fair of me to critique something where my initial position is one of dislike (for that reason, I'll never evaluate a country music album).

I could never be sure that my criticism was fair and not colored by my basic feelings.

 

[TheInsanePumkinCarver]

Great thread! It finally paid off to be a picky reader, as my list off turn-offs is longer then my uncle's prison sentence.

Some has already been mentioned by other users, while others are my own.


1. Stories with perfect characters. Like a slim woman with HUGE DDD tits, blonde hair, an unusual tight vagina while giving the best blowjobs on Earth. Or a gigantic tall slab of meat and muscle who is a quarterback on the football team with a dick the size of an eggplant.

2. Stories in first person where it takes an eternity to figure out if the MC is a female or anything else of importance.

3. Stories that don't provide any info about the appearance of the characters. You don't have to describe every pimple or wart they've had since birth, but knowing height, hair color and body type would be nice. (This applies to both male and female characters.)

4. Constantly telling and not shoving.

5. Unlikable/mean main characters.

6. Wall of text.

7. Sex without any buildup whatsoever. (This is especially annoying in the incest category)

8. Short stories. I almost never read 1-2 page stories. When I read erotica I want to get to know the characters and a gradual build up and in my mind you need at least three pages to accomplish this.

9. Characters who smoke or use drugs.

 

[Vix_Giovanni]

FWIW, I don't think it's fair of me to critique something where my initial position is one of dislike (for that reason, I'll never evaluate a country music album).

I could never be sure that my criticism was fair and not colored by my basic feelings.

I think many of us can. Many professional critics do it daily. Around Lit, many of us writers are also beta readers and editors; every story may not be our cup of tea, but we see its merits.

Anecdotally, I read a short story called “Taylor Swift” a few years ago; it’s an award winning story, easy to remember because of the name, and one of the judges of said award specifically described how every element of the story is something he hates (which highlighted for him the high quality of craftsmanship).

 

[Vix_Giovanni]

......

 

[SimonDoom]

FWIW, I don't think it's fair of me to critique something where my initial position is one of dislike (for that reason, I'll never evaluate a country music album).

I could never be sure that my criticism was fair and not colored by my basic feelings.

"Something you dislike" is different from "outside your preferences." I might agree that I'd pass on reviewing something I just really don't like. But there are things outside my preference area that I don't necessarily dislike. In fact, in the field of erotica there are very few subject matters I just plain dislike. I'm not into snuff or poop, but I probably could do a decent job critiquing a story in those areas, because my criteria for evaluating would be pretty much the same as for stories I was inclined to like. For me, reviewing has nothing to do with whether I naturally gravitate to the subject matter.

 

[Jada59]

For me, it would be too many details that are not important. I read one story where the guy gave a really good description of the jeans he was wearing, right down to the thread color on the seams. Why? His jeans were not even part of the story!

Or a thorough physical description of the room. I read one where the author described the basement very well. I could picture the orange and gold brocade drapes, the white shag carpet, the brown couch with the threadbare arm, the lamp with the dusty shade... And then they fucked. Nothing about how they fucked or felt or even where it occurred. On the couch? On the carpet? I'll never know.

Too much description of the guy's cock and balls. I don't really need to know that the head looks like mushroom or that it's 7.5 inches long. Yes, sometimes details are necessary, but not in this case!

 

[ThatIsNotSupposeToHappen]

For me, it would be too many details that are not important. I read one story where the guy gave a really good description of the jeans he was wearing, right down to the thread color on the seams. Why? His jeans were not even part of the story!

Or a thorough physical description of the room. I read one where the author described the basement very well. I could picture the orange and gold brocade drapes, the white shag carpet, the brown couch with the threadbare arm, the lamp with the dusty shade... And then they fucked. Nothing about how they fucked or felt or even where it occurred. On the couch? On the carpet? I'll never know.

Too much description of the guy's cock and balls. I don't really need to know that the head looks like mushroom or that it's 7.5 inches long. Yes, sometimes details are necessary, but not in this case!

That's interesting actually. I mean obviously everyone will agree with the fact that unnecessary details ought to be excluded, and I also think you kinda touched on the issue where some authors tend to just read of details like a police reporting ("telling" instead of "showing") which nobody likes.

BUT the thing about not liking overly precise and emphasized physical descriptions is something that I imagine men and women differ on. I mean I don't know if this is actually the case, but my guesstimate is that male readers tend to like more detailed physical descriptions, especially descriptions of women, whilst it might be less important for the female reader due to the fact that men are generally more oriented towards visual sexual stimuli. If I am wrong please let me know, but it's just something I kind off imagine to generally true.

 

[Jada59]

That's interesting actually. I mean obviously everyone will agree with the fact that unnecessary details ought to be excluded, and I also think you kinda touched on the issue where some authors tend to just read of details like a police reporting ("telling" instead of "showing") which nobody likes.

BUT the thing about not liking overly precise and emphasized physical descriptions is something that I imagine men and women differ on. I mean I don't know if this is actually the case, but my guesstimate is that male readers tend to like more detailed physical descriptions, especially descriptions of women, whilst it might be less important for the female reader due to the fact that men are generally more oriented towards visual sexual stimuli. If I am wrong please let me know, but it's just something I kind off imagine to generally true.

I think you're right. The intricate descriptions I've seen are often by men.

 

[SeabornFare]

That's interesting actually. I mean obviously everyone will agree with the fact that unnecessary details ought to be excluded, and I also think you kinda touched on the issue where some authors tend to just read of details like a police reporting ("telling" instead of "showing") which nobody likes.

That's presumptuous of you.

Show vs. Tell didn't become popular until the 1920's, so it was not an industry staple at the beginning of time. I have read many books that Tell more than Show, and I have found them exceptional. Cormac McCarthy Tells more than show, off the top of my head, and his books read much like a narration.

Repeating popular phrases does not mean that everyone holds writers to those assumed standards.

 

[MelissaBaby]

For me, it would be too many details that are not important. I read one story where the guy gave a really good description of the jeans he was wearing, right down to the thread color on the seams. Why? His jeans were not even part of the story!

Or a thorough physical description of the room. I read one where the author described the basement very well. I could picture the orange and gold brocade drapes, the white shag carpet, the brown couch with the threadbare arm, the lamp with the dusty shade... And then they fucked. Nothing about how they fucked or felt or even where it occurred. On the couch? On the carpet? I'll never know.

Too much description of the guy's cock and balls. I don't really need to know that the head looks like mushroom or that it's 7.5 inches long. Yes, sometimes details are necessary, but not in this case!

In setting a scene or giving a physical description, I try to hone in on one or two details that I hope will trigger a more thorough imaging on the part of the reader.

For example, if I write, "Joe stood in the doorway in his threadbare work shirt and dusty boots.", 90% of the readers will picture him wearing jeans. There's no need to say "and a pair of jeans." Most might even specifically picture the jeans as dirty and tattered.

If "Joe watched Sally eat her pizza in the glow of the candle in the chianti bottle." Do I have to tell you that there are travel posters of Italy on the restaurant walls? Or that the table is covered in a red checkered cloth? I don't think so. I think the majority of readers will fill in those details, and those who don't aren't really missing anything.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

In setting a scene or giving a physical description, I try to hone in on one or two details that I hope will trigger a more thorough imaging on the part of the reader.

For example, if I write, "Joe stood in the doorway in his threadbare work shirt and dusty boots.", 90% of the readers will picture him wearing jeans. There's no need to say "and a pair of jeans." Most might even specifically picture the jeans as dirty and tattered.

If "Joe watched Sally eat her pizza in the glow of the candle in the chianti bottle." Do I have to tell you that there are travel posters of Italy on the restaurant walls? Or that the table is covered in a red checkered cloth? I don't think so. I think the majority of readers will fill in those details, and those who don't aren't really missing anything.

You might have to, if you wanted to set the scene in a particular type of Italian restaurant. Where I live, you'd be hard-pressed to find the stereotypical 1950s pizzeria with red-checked tablecloths and Italian travel posters. Unless the context was set elsewhere in your narrative, you'd at least have to distinguish between a diner-type Italian restaurant and an up-scale one with wood-burning pizza oven.

I try to approach it all from the point of view of how much detail do you need to set the scene/character for the tale you're telling.

 

[ThatIsNotSupposeToHappen]

That's presumptuous of you.

Show vs. Tell didn't become popular until the 1920's, so it was not an industry staple at the beginning of time. I have read many books that Tell more than Show, and I have found them exceptional. Cormac McCarthy Tells more than show, off the top of my head, and his books read much like a narration.

Repeating popular phrases does not mean that everyone holds writers to those assumed standards.

Yes, you're right. I shouldn't speak like I have any sort of authority or knowledge on this subject, I just tried to clarify what I was specifically considered to be interesting.

 

[KeithD]

That's presumptuous of you.

Show vs. Tell didn't become popular until the 1920's, so it was not an industry staple at the beginning of time. I have read many books that Tell more than Show, and I have found them exceptional. Cormac McCarthy Tells more than show, off the top of my head, and his books read much like a narration.

Repeating popular phrases does not mean that everyone holds writers to those assumed standards.

Agree to the extent that a police report would be an example of when you'd want to give the actual wording of the report rather than do any form of "showing" to establish the scene with authenticity, so it's probably not a good example of when not to use telling.

 

[MelissaBaby]

You might have to, if you wanted to set the scene in a particular type of Italian restaurant. Where I live, you'd be hard-pressed to find the stereotypical 1950s pizzeria with red-checked tablecloths and Italian travel posters. Unless the context was set elsewhere in your narrative, you'd at least have to distinguish between a diner-type Italian restaurant and an up-scale one with wood-burning pizza oven.

I try to approach it all from the point of view of how much detail do you need to set the scene/character for the tale you're telling.

Well, when I have to, I do, when I don't have to, I don't.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I try to approach it all from the point of view of how much detail do you need to set the scene/character for the tale you're telling.

Yes, just enough to bring the place to life for the purposes of the narrative - which might be a tiny detail or a whole stage set, depending on the scene.

There's no one rule on "How much is enough?" My answer would always be, "Sufficient for the story's purpose."

 

[SimonDoom]

For me, it would be too many details that are not important.

This is one of the topics James Wood discussed in his book, How Fiction Works, which I just finished. He discusses the greater, and sometimes perhaps excessive, attention given to detail in "good" fiction since Flaubert.

Some classic authors, like Jane Austen, for instance, hardly describe anything at all. Many contemporary authors, however, seem compelled to shower readers in details. My view is that detail is necessary to the extent it serves the narrative, and the rest can be tossed out. A little goes a long way.