Words that should never be used to describe a book!

funlovintapir

I'm always reading through reviews looking for something good to read. A lot of people make the most shallow and simplistic statements in their reviews which I think, in an ideal world, should be banned from reviews!

SELF-INDULGENT; PRETENTIOUS
This is a favorite used by people when they failed to understand something, or to describe anything which is in any way challenging, artistic or unconventional.

OVER RATED
This is a popular one that doesn't really mean anything. Over rated by who, your friends, critics, professors, the public. What does it mean, that people liked it more than they should have? You can't argue with a preference. You could say ANYTHING is over rated within its own sphere of influence.

RELATE TO
Example, "I love the Catcher in the Rye, I really related to Holden!"
Example, "I hated Lolita, I just couldn't relate to a paedophile!"
This is such a limiting way of reading, just because you don't like or relate to a character, it doesn't mean it's not valid or interesting writing. This is reading on the most shallow level - trying to see a piece of yourself in everything, instead of trying to discover something which may be unfamiliar to you.

BORING
This is a terrible, useless, offensive word. If you are bored by something, that is your own fault, not a writer's. It is not something to include in a review, and if it really is something tedious, be specific and you better have a good reason because the writer may have spent months or years carefully considering and crafting his/her book only to be bluntly dismissed by someone who may not have understood or cared to understand their word.


Banish these terms forever.

Sleipnir

"Unputdownable"

The word should not exist and should never, ever adorn the cover of a book.

randomguy

funlovintapir wrote: »

I'm always reading through reviews looking for something good to read. A lot of people make the most shallow and simplistic statements in their reviews which I think, in an ideal world, should be banned from reviews!

SELF-INDULGENT; PRETENTIOUS
This is a favorite used by people when they failed to understand something, or to describe anything which is in any way challenging, artistic or unconventional.

OVER RATED
This is a popular one that doesn't really mean anything. Over rated by who, your friends, critics, professors, the public. What does it mean, that people liked it more than they should have? You can't argue with a preference. You could say ANYTHING is over rated within its own sphere of influence.

RELATE TO
Example, "I love the Catcher in the Rye, I really related to Holden!"
Example, "I hated Lolita, I just couldn't relate to a paedophile!"
This is such a limiting way of reading, just because you don't like or relate to a character, it doesn't mean it's not valid or interesting writing. This is reading on the most shallow level - trying to see a piece of yourself in everything, instead of trying to discover something which may be unfamiliar to you.

BORING
This is a terrible, useless, offensive word. If you are bored by something, that is your own fault, not a writer's. It is not something to include in a review, and if it really is something tedious, be specific and you better have a good reason because the writer may have spent months or years carefully considering and crafting his/her book only to be bluntly dismissed by someone who may not have understood or cared to understand their word.

Banish these terms forever.

Boring post - I thought it was self-indulgent and pretentious. I generally find this sort of meta-criticism to be over-rated. Then again, maybe it's just that it's not something I can relate to.

Sorry, couldn't resist!

Eliot Rosewater

I agree with the OP, and I hope that I haven't been guilty myself! The only one of those I know Ive used is self-indulgent in describing Ayn Rand, but I base that criticism on the sheer length and repetition of The Fountainhead rather than any style of writing that I didn't appreciate.

The word boring is very hard-hitting. I think one of the most insulting things you can do is label someone boring, especially if they're being passionate.

In general reviews seem to be a cliche ridden art.

funlovintapir

i think everyone says those things, i have caught myself doing it many times. but its very unhelpful to anyone reading a review. its so annoying and smug when someone just dismisses something with those words without giving any good reason.

funlovintapir

randomguy wrote: »

Boring post - I thought it was self-indulgent and pretentious. I generally find this sort of meta-criticism to be over-rated. Then again, maybe it's just that it's not something I can relate to.

Sorry, couldn't resist!

I'd say you're happy with that one alright!

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

Nah, you can definately accuse a book of being boring or self indulgent. What about 'Closing Time' by Joseph Heller, perhaps the most boring and self indulgent book of all time? A book is boring when it doesn't bother to say anything new, and/or deals with themes which require the mental maturity of a toddler to understand. A book is self indulgent when it coats these primitive themes with purple prose and long winded blocks of description. Hence a book can be both boring and self indulgent...

Though I agree, 'related to' is a horrible term (Though i am possibly guilt of using it myself) as is 'over-rated'. But to be fair, some books are over-rated! Think the 'Da Vinci Code'. Most of your friends have probably read it and thought it was good. Was it? No, utter tosh. Hence over-rated...

buck65

Pageturner.

I always look at this word and draw my breath. It makes me feel like someone is chasing me in a car and I am running down a laneway in the dark with the road ahead lit up by the headlights.

If a book is a pageturner how can it set out it's plot , flesh out it's characters? Surely there are parts of the book where the tempo and excitement is ratchetted up a few marks but the whole book? My heart!!

Eliot Rosewater

Denerick wrote: »

Nah, you can definately accuse a book of being boring or self indulgent.

I suppose opinions like the OP's don't come about because the thing they're arguing against is wrong. It comes about because that thing is overused.

Take the infamous "Godwins law" about Hitler and Nazi analogies. Hitler analogies aren't necessarily bad. If someone justifies something on the basis of the majority wanting it, then you could rightfully pull the Hitler-having-democratic-legitimacy card. The problem is that the analogy is used too much (Think: "Your against social welfare? I bet you agreed with the holocaust"). As such no Hitler analogy, correct or otherwise, is tolerated.

Books can be self-indulgent or boring. The problem is that books that aren't those things are labeled them too frequently, and incorrectly calling a book self-indulgent or boring is sufficiently insulting to warrant discouraging every use of those words.

Denerick

Eliot, unconsciously you are guilty of 'reductio et Hitlerum', if for different reasons than most...

I half agree with you. And I agree that these words have attained the meaning of a superlative, and hence shouldn't normally be used. But desperate books do call for desperate measures!

Tea rocks

In fairness, I have come across some books that can only be described as indulgent (I wouldn't necessarily say 'self-indulgent', and for me Wonder Boys by Michael Chabon is a good example). Others are really over-rated (Twilight, ugh. And 'over-rated' is probably being generous).

Finally, if a reader finds a book boring, why is it strictly the reader's fault? Some books are poorly written and the progression of the plot becomes laden down with dense exposition, stodgy prose, and pointless deviations. Sometimes novels are boring. How does that suddenly become a problem inherent in the reader?

Earthhorse

There is nothing wrong with any of the terms in mentioned in the OP. All of them are perfectly valid descriptions of elements of a book or the characters in it. If you want to complain about the misuse of them, by all means, but to say they should never be used is ridiculous.

Mental_Legend

Worse than the movie?

Eliot Rosewater

Denerick wrote: »

Eliot, unconsciously you are guilty of 'reductio et Hitlerum', if for different reasons than most...

Explain

Denerick wrote: »

But desperate books do call for desperate measures!

Point taken! I suppose when I read discussions or reviews for books its generally not Twilight kind of stuff, so usually I would be hesitant to agree with the reviewer when they label books so.

Fluorescence

Interesting is a word that should never be used - it doesn't mean anything in particular! There are better adjectives to describe a book...