A strange prose style will put me off as well, although not always. That deal-breaker is more of a "know it when I see it" sort of thing, because I’ll be fine with (even love) some sorts of quirks, and immediately put down others after a paragraph or two.

I agree with GZ, if a character is doing something I think is ridiculous I'll drop the book fast. Thi is a particular problem in the fantasy genre because authors tend to give people these great magical powers but then the characters don't use them to their fullest capacity.

Overly descriptive books bore me, I don't necessarily put them down, but I'm likely to skim past portions, and thus likely to miss something important. But the fact that I keep doing so tells you how much I care.

Unlikable characters! This should have been at the top. If I can't sympathize with one or more of your characters you can forget it. This is why I don't like a lot of cyberpunk or criminal as the hero stories.

Oh, I could come up with a whole lot more but I don't want to hog the topic...on to good stuff!

I love intelligent, or at least clever characters. I also like nice characters but genuine nice, not the sugary sweetness that makes you want to barf and seems forced. I like realistic people with realistic problems.

But I will tell you what completely breaks a book for me. When the author raises the expectation that certain dramatic tensions will be resolved, or that certain plot elements have some critical role in the story, and then turns around and drops them. I will put down a book when I'm three quarters of the way through if that happens.

On the other hand, prose that strikes me as ordinary, melodramatic, overdone tends to put me off. I think I could stay with a story that was not all that exciting if the prose quality was sufficiently moving. Likewise, I would likely stay with a rippin good yarn, even if the writing was hackneyed. But ordinary writing and a hohum plot will have a hard time holding my interest.

Things that irritate me:
- holes in plot. Example The Matrix. Why did Agent Smith and cronies have to bug Neo's stomach when he was plugged into the matrix and they could read his entire mind?
- Bad editing. Example, Tom Clancy in one of his novels kept mentioning a character looked good except she needed to loose 10 pounds. This occurred 2-3 times, once would have been enough. Then he killed her off with the Ebola virus.
- Cheezy writing. Again with Tom Clancy... he keeps calling the wife of Jack Ryan "Doc". "She is a good doc". Variant "She is a good eye doc". Second variant "Really sexy eye doc." Barf....

I don't know to which Clancy novel you're referring, but I suspect it is one that I haven't read. Somewhere in the lead up to Rainbow Six I noticed that Clancy isn't writing as well as formerly, and stopped reading his books. The way he used "Doc" as a term of affection and respect in the prior books worked well, but perhaps that went downhill along with other things (I don't know).

Killashandra (or whatever her name is) from Crystal Singer is your idea of a positive, "strong female character"? She was my idea of...well best not say...she was female, I guess.

Never read any Grisham, but the movies were stupid (the acting and direction were fine, just the plots were stupid--which could have been because of the books).

For example, plots holes are terrible, but I love Harry Potter along with the rest of the world, and no one can deny the plot holes in those books.

I like a good, solid writing style but it doesn't always work, and certainly not alone. I put down the only Ursula K. LeGuin book I ever started to read because her prose was too flowery, difficult to follow, and I cou ld not follow her point of view for the life of me.

I just remembered something I heard OSC say and it's so true. You can break any rule you want as long as you're willing to accept the consequences. So, for example, if you have a hole in your plot as big as the one in the fourth Harry Potter book where "Mad Eye" could have given Harry a port key at any point and never needed to marionette him through the tri-wizard tournament, then you'd better have a fun book with lovable characters.

Added - Oh yeah, I also tend to give up on a book when the writer is trying to impress us with how much s/he knows (big words that don't work, complicated sentences) that does nothing for the story - I guess it is a style thing. Fiction trying to look like a college paper... Also, an author who is being difficult just to prove a point - eliminate obfuscation! Some Heinlein bugs me, some does not. I don't like being patronized either. SF audiences are pretty smart - don't mess with us

I loved Killashandra - I have reread "Crystal Singer" many times. I also really love to reread "Friday" by Heinlein. Books that are so vivid they run like movies in my head as I read them, that move so well from one part to the next it all makes sense (good transitions!!!!!), that are really clever (elements that will matter are discretely laid along the way - you don't realize it until it starts to come together) and well-planned such that things tie together, creating that increasing sense of excitement or expectation up to the climax - those work for me!

1. Bad writing. Great writing is a bonus to any work, but I require clear writing. I whole-heartedly agree with Somerset Maugham: “Anything is better than not to write clearly. There is nothing to be said against lucidity, and against simplicity only the possibility of dryness. This is a risk well worth taking when you reflect how much better it is to be bald than to wear a curly wig.” In terms of style, I think Orson Scott Card is a rather dull writer; I’d also clump Isaac Asimov in this group. But both of their prose is clear and lucid, thereby making room for their incredible stories.

In fact, the best stylists are the ones whose writing you can admire, but whose writing doesn’t take over the story. In his short story, “The Dead,” James Joyce achieves this kind of perfection; unfortunately, his “style” takes over his later works and his story suffers. This fault is certainly a problem among literary writers. Hemingway and Faulkner both allow their styles to take over some of their work. And what makes contemporary literature so disgusting is that it’s all about “style.” It’s always sad when artistic form takes precedence over substance.

2. Bad story telling. I’m not sure I can expand on what Survivor has already said. What I really hate is when the author makes the characters do something unintelligible for the sake of the story. This is different from a plot driven story--such as The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars--in which the characters are responding to the actions of another character. Another kind of “good” plot-driven story is the action story--Indiana Jones, for example--in which the main character is a modern-day hero, a modern-day Achilles or Hektor, taking risks that the Common Man would never take.

A good example of this kind of mistake is the movie, Attack of the Clones. I don’t understand why the sagacious Jedi would allow Anakin to be Padme’s personal bodyguard. Surely, they have enough acumen to understand that he’s very attracted to her, and they have enough foresight to see what might happen should he be her bodyguard. It seems to me that Lucas made them blind because if he didn’t, he wouldn’t have the story he wanted to tell.

If the curse of the literary author is putting emphasis on “style,” the curse of the commercial author is manipulating characters--or creating cardboard characters--for the sake of the story.

3. Bad dialogue. This one drives me batty, and it usually goes hand-in-hand with bad storytelling. Why? Because the author hasn’t taken the time to create or understand his or her characters. I admit, convincing dialogue is hard, mostly because it’s hard for an author to get away from his or her own ways of speaking when he or she is writing dialogue. This is why it’s so important to not only listen to what people say, but how they say it.

4. Blatant Themes or Propaganda of Ideology. Personally, I don’t believe a story can be any good without a theme, or a meaning, or whatever you want to call it. On some level, a good story compels the reader to reflect on his understanding of life and reality and possibly amend it. I don’t care what religious, political, or philosophical viewpoints an author is coming from. I believe we can and should try to learn from all. But what I despise is when an author’s philosophy becomes the reason for the story, or when the theme starts dripping off of every page.

An extremely meaningful book is Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird. About halfway through it, you begin to see that the theme of her book is prejudice. But you never get the sense that she’s manipulating the story for the sake of her theme. That can’t be said of John Steinbeck, who seems to pose complicated good against unbelievable evil. The result is melodramatic propaganda.

5. Unnecessary description. This is the hardest to explain. One of my favorite novels is The Lord of the Rings, which has been accused of being cumbersome with description. I don’t see it like that at all; I think one of the greatest assets of Tolkien is the description. Middle Earth is alive because of it.

I find Stephen King to have a lot of unnecessary description; I still enjoy reading his stories, but he wears me out with the bits and bits of details. Conversely, I often wish OSC would include more description in his stories—although I can’t say that I don’t have vivid scenes from his stories engraved in my mind.

* * * * *

Looking back over this list, I’d have to say that I’ll put down a novel because of bad storytelling, bad dialogue, or bad writing. Usually, these three things go hand-in-hand. Even though Steinbeck’s blatant ideology is a turn-off, I enjoy reading him because he tells a good story and he’s a good writer. Excessive or non-existence description has never destroyed a story for me, but both the excess or the defect of description can take a reader out of the dream an author is trying to create.

I very rarely put a book down once I've started reading it. So there are two things that stand out in my memory once I've finished reading the book:

- How strongly I empathized with the characters.
- How good the outcome is.

I like mystery in my stories. For instance, one favourite is Niven/Pournelle's "The Mote in God's Eye". I wouldn't say the characters in it stand out (I can't remember a lot about them, despite it being less than a year since I read it last), but when you finally learn what it is that has driven the evolution and culture of the aliens to the point they have reached... and all the consequences that go with it. That just makes the story spectacular.

I am sure there are much more specific reason I would hate stories, but when a character is developed a certain way, or not enough, and goes and does something against what the writer has set up for him, it kills it for me. Making choices at random. I like to see characters sticking to their own morality, not the morals of the author. Etc.

Maybe not the best reasoning, but I think you understand what I am getting at.

EDIT: Oh, and I must heartily agree with Balthazar here. Propgandizing or overly thematic elements really kill anything for me, be it a book, music, movies, or even commericials for insurance that take themselves far too seriously, showing "patriotic" or idealized versions of America or the world, or trying to hard to cater to minorities or other groups. I dont like being beaten over the head with anything, and I wont let myself have something stacked on me so heavily while reading either. Why a book/movie whatever that has NO theme that I can see (And I often find my own) also turns me away, as I beleive there should be a purpose (even if I must find it myself), its worse when its so obvious that you cannot enjoy the characters for sake of their representations etc.

It also brings into focus the need to thoroughly flesh out one’s characters, the plot elements, and how everything our characters say and do *must* propel the story forward.

In fact, reading through everyone’s comments has made me realize that the most crucial part of writing a book isn’t the writing at all, really, but the “architecting” of the story – deciding how and when each layer of each character and each plot element will be revealed – and we must do this long before we type “Chapter One” onto a blank screen.

Too often I’ve sat down at the keyboard with just the thread of a story idea in my head, and I forge ahead with great enthusiasm...only to hit a roadblock after a few chapters. Writing isn’t the hard part; it’s knowing *what* to write and *how* to write it that is the challenge, yes? And from what everyone has posted here, I believe that the best stories held a unique voice because of the amount of thought the writer put into that story before writing it. The cadence of the words, the rhythm of the action – all was harvested from the characters and the plot elements that only these characters, in this particular setting, would have known.

I’m probably not making as much sense as all of you have made in your postings, but, oh my, have you lit a light in my head with your comments! Thanks much for this feedback!

P.S. As I was writing this, another member logged on with the above post. I like these questions...and can honestly say that when I made the choice to be a writer, it hit me fast that I could no longer “just read a book,” but was suddenly (and forever more, I guess!) reading as a writer, and not “just” a reader. I don’t know that doing so makes me quicker to condemn writing that doesn’t meet my standards. It does, though, make me think, “@#&!, I could’ve done that!!!” : ) I do think that the more we read, the better we’ll write – and we’ll also know better *what* to write and what *not* to write.

As for how we can be sure that our opinions of good or bad writing reflect that of the vast reading public...hmm, that’s a great question. And as I’m writing this I think the answer lies in all the comments above. A good book lingers in the mind of a reader, and it’s good because all the elements have been dovetailed. All the characters remained true to who and what they are, all the plot pieces were directly related to these characters, to their wants and their dreams and their strengths and their weaknesses...and because of all this great story architecture, the writer’s unique voice shined through. No other writer could have written this story in this exact way, and no other characters could have inhabited this story. Everything fit.

ERGH!

Its one of the only non-textbooks I've put down and not gone back to. I swear the author must be getting paid by the word. I went through half the book before getting to what appeared to be a major plot device/forshadow what have you.

You could kill off 2 major characters and three sub plots and have a better book.

To many characters/too many plots/ all bein mixed togethre an thrown on the cookie sheet to bake rarely makes something tastey.

I read about Gone With the Wind, and a chapter, and some long summaries, but have never read the book. Based on that, I did not like the description of Scarlet - she sounded too self-absorbed, selfish, to the detriment of those around her. She uses men and hurts them and others by doing so. She is apparently a good business woman (or becomes so), was driven in achieving certain goals, and did have other positive characteristics. I initially bridled at a comparison between her and Killa, then realized that they do share characteristics.

I think it is just how they are used to create a character in a particular story that makes me like Killa and not Scarlet. I think Killa was designed to be liked for her strengths - she chose professions that required a strong ego, superior abilities, and result in driving ambition to achieve a goal. Scarlet creates situations to hurt others, while Killa is hurt by others' jealousy over her success and luck, yet continues in spite of it. She doesn't hurt Rimbol on purpose, but Scarlet hurts Rhett on purpose. And in the end, Scarlet learns too late what she lost and wants, while Killa learns and changes and gets the guy (ok, a different guy, but Rimbol wasn't treating her very well!). She changes over the next two books into a more mature personality, a good partner, a fascinating character with whom I sympathize. I had trouble sympathizing with Scarlet. As a reader, this is how I feel. If I was the writer, I would hope to understand that not all readers will perceive a character in the same way, thus not all will like what I write. Obviously there must be others out there who like Scarlet (and won't like Killa!).

It is difficult to please everyone, so we need to write what we like and hope to please some readers. We know what SOME readers want, because we are also readers and know what we like. Our opinion matters - the exercise of explaining to ourselves and others what we like and don't like in books is meant to help us write better. However, it is no guarantee that everyone, much less some people, will like what we've written.

The unfortunate truth is that we discovered what we already know - we want well-written stories with good characters and plots, etc., etc., but actually doing it is something else. We think we know it when we see it, but someone else might disagree. Crystal Singer won't be universally loved, but I'm sure Anne McCaffrey isn't worried about that. I think Heinlein knew his work would not be popular with everyone, but that did not keep him from writing in his own unique fashion and finding an audience. Even on this site some people have expressed a dislike of some of OSC's work, yet I imagine many of us like it (or some of it) since we are here.

Perhaps we need to accept the fact that there is no magic ink/style/writing trick that will make our writing loved or liked by all. We know what makes a book good to us, and we'll use those lessons to help us write. Getting it out on the computer screen is a great exercise in thinking about what we are doing, and can help us remember what to focus on.

But it also has to be well written!!!

Different things bore different people, of course, but for me, excessive description and exposition make my eyes glaze over. Get me into the action as soon as possible, make me care about the characters by weaving necessary descriptors/backstory into the narrative, and pace your plot well.

When a writer is so able to catch me up into his fictional world, that it actually takes a few moments for me to re-orient myself to reality- well that's a great writer!!