Suggested by John :
How about a chance to play editor-in-chief? Fill in the blanks:
__________ would have been a much better book if ______________________.
Don’t forget to leave a link to your actual response (so people don’t have to go searching for it) in the comments—or if you prefer, leave your answers in the comments themselves!
Most writers have a plan when they start writing a book. Usually I go along with this plan, they seem to know what they're doing. If the story doesn't go the way I wanted it but still has some logic, then I'm okay with that. As long as the ending doesn't feel phony or like the author just gave up.
I'm in a cranky mood, so I hope that doesn't effect my answer.
I do have a problem with bad grammar. It makes it very difficult to concentrate. Henry James might be readable if someone had taken a red pen to all those run on sentences. The story of The Wings of the Dove has an interesting premise, but I just couldn't get over the sentences that went on for whole paragraphs. I felt that he set out to annoy the reader.
The only other book I can think of is Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand intended to beat us over the head with her philosophy. Twenty page speeches are fine if you're writing a text book but as a novel it didn't do it for me. Subtle, Rand is not.
I actual feel a little bit better! Great question to let me vent a little, even if it has nothing to do with why I'm so p*ssed off. I'm sure my editor-in-chief is different from your editor-in-chief that's why some of the greatest writers struggled with rejection for ages before being published. It's all a matter of opinion what's good, what's bad.