The following is an incomplete list of my personal pet peeves in fiction.
- Spontaneous manifestation of fate or destiny. Concepts like fate and destiny imply that the world is organising itself in a certain way, enacting some master plan independent of the mere humans who are participating in it. Things don't spontaneously enact a master plan by themselves; if you want to have fate and/or destiny in your book then you need to explain what those things are and how they can exist. They have to come from somewhere; specifically, they have to come from some sort of intelligence that is running the universe — presumably a deity of some sort. Fate and destiny are forms of predetermination: so who, or what, is doing the predetermining? The involvement of reincarnation or a similar concept can allow a story to get away with invoking fate and destiny, as characters conforming to the actions of their previous lives or archetypes can be used to imply that there is a pattern or rhythm to history, but too often, "fate" and "destiny" are code words for Writer Wants To Handwave Why Stuff Happens The Way It Does But Doesn't Want To Admit To Having A God In Their Made-up World.
- Destiny "having a sense of humour". Pursuant to the above: destiny doesn't have a sense of humour. It's an abstract concept: it can't think and therefore can't have a sense of humour. If I have to read or hear something about "destiny having a sense of humour" one more time I'm going to scream. Irony doesn't require predetermination: things can be coincidental or ironic or funny without some cosmic force intending them to be so.
- Banter. Sassy banter. Oh, spare me. I've written briefly here about why I don't like banter, but the shorter version is that banter is only entertaining for the participants, and, as a reader, all that banter tells me about the characters is that they are witty and Sassy™: but wit is merely intelligence performing for others: in itself, wit does not reveal character; and oftentimes "sassy" is just code for "smug and annoying" (much like "feisty" is code for "character who seems unthreatening by virtue of being old and/or a woman and/or physically small but actually thinks they deserve respect"). I suspect that a lot of authors who haven't explored their characters' psyches use banter and sass in place of personality.
- Too much snark. I love a snarky character or two, but when every character is snarky it makes me wonder if — as with sass and banter — the author is using snark in place of personality, and perhaps doesn't know how to include any other form of humour in their story. Most people in real life aren't in a permanent state of snark, and for those who are, there is a reason why: it's a mechanism of defence or misdirection, and perhaps it has become habitual. A character who continually snarks makes me wonder what psychological fear or secret emotion they are covering, and if there seems to be no reason for the snark, I start to doubt that the writer understands what purpose snarkiness actually serves.
- Villains without convincing motives. Not all villains have to be sympathetic, but I still want to understand why they are doing what they're doing. "Because I really, really want power" is fine, but what will they do with their power once they have it? What do they think "power" is, exactly? What do they believe it will do for them? Will it keep them safe? Bring them revenge? Enable them to live in luxury? Why do they want those specific things so badly? "Because evil is fun" is also a perfectly serviceable motive for a villain, but the rest of their psychology has to align in such a way that I can believe they really are the kind of person who does evil stuff for fun and no other reason.
- A lack of justice. My main objection to Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing is that women's lives get ruined by men who are never punished appropriately. Have your nasty villains, but punish them accordingly. If I wanted to see wicked people get away with their wickedness, I would read a newspaper. I'm reading fiction because I want to see justice done.
- Predictable dialogue. Human speech frequently follows patterns; small talk and general conversation often follow a routine. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about conversations that should be enlightening and drive the plot forward, enhance the atmosphere, or develop the characters and their relationships, but instead are a collection of clichés. If I can predict every line of dialogue in the conversation, you're writing a soap opera and you need to stop.
