Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Talk to Me Tuesday: Literary Pet Peeves

 Talk to Me Tuesday is a weekly bookish meme hosted by my bloggy friend Melissa @ i swim for oceans!


This week's question: Do you have any specific literary pet-peeves in the genres you read and why?


I read a lot of Suspense Thrillers. Not lately, since I've been checking out some other genres, but I'd say they take up the majority of my "Read" Bookshelf. The thing that grinds my gears about them sometimes is the obligatory love/lust story. Listen, if I wanted to read a romance novel, I would not be reading a hardcore suspense thriller, James Patterson. Alex Cross does not have to sleep with someone in every book for cryin' out loud. (I'm about 3 books through the series, but he does it in other books too!!!)

The last amazing suspense thriller I read was The Running Man by Richard Bachman (Stephen King). This is a good example of one that does the love story in the right way. Bachman made it clear in the first few pages that the main character needed to support his family and it was his deep love for them that drove him to make the decisions he made in the novel. Not some lusty hotel affair that doesn't drive the plot at all! Sheesh!


I mean, what do you guys think? Agree? Disagree? What are some of your pet peeves?

6 comments:

  1. It amazes me how many authors feel the need to throw a sub-genre into their book. I probably wouldn't enjoy a romance novel within a crime novel either, to be honest. Not everything has to be like that! Great answer, Lah! :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. For me, I think it really depends on if the love story actually fits within the context of the novel. If there is a gradual buildup that makes sense between two characters then I don't mind so much, but if it just kind of comes out of nowhere then I find myself rolling my eyes. lol.


    My Teaser Tuesday

    ReplyDelete
  3. haha I totally know what you mean! It drives me nuts when male protagonists in suspense books have women throwing themselves at them or have some gratuitous "romance" for no discernible reason. Though I suppose the same could be said for female-centric thrillers...

    Like another commenter said, if it's worked in well it's not too bad, but those "surprising" encounters are painful.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It depends I think. If it's a different girl in each book, it doesn't belong. But in the Pendergast series with Childs/Lincoln as authors there is a love story with the museum worker and even Pendergast has a love as does the detective, who's name escapes me. But they build throughout each book and are part of the plot. In that instance they belong.

    But just to add it only to have the person disappear, no doesn't belong.

    Heather

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ugh, I agree. This is one of the reasons I love YA so much. There's a lot less of the obligatory lust sex. Although that's been changing a lot lately...

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am totally with you! I loved Patterson's thrillers, but the romance he incorporates in them just makes me drop my jaw. Why does Alex always have to have someone to sleep with/fall in love with? He's good the way he is. And besides, Patterson already writes romance novels, better concentrate the amorous scenes there.

    Thanks for dropping by my blog! Glad you liked the review. It's not totally sad, but it does have its moments. Actually there were some pretty funny scenes to :D

    Brush Up On Your Reading

    ReplyDelete

I appreciate your comments!