T5W: Tired Book Trends

How many times have you picked up a book and something about it - on the cover, in the genre, something deep inside that you only find after you've been reading for a while - something makes you go, "Ugh, again?"

That's the topic for this weeks Top 5 Wednesday!

In no particular order, here we go:

Number 1!

Dystopian books.

I was never a fan of the dystopian craze, especially in YA. I think the world is awful enough without some teenager leading a poorly planned rebellion after some apocalyptic societal restructuring.

Seriously, you fight for freedom, and then what? Not everyone wants freedom, not everyone wants to fight, and who is gong to lead your brave new world? You?

Yeah, probably not.

Number 2!

Time travel.

Some time travel books are really good. Many are not. Just a personal preference, no real specific reason. I'm just tired of time travel stories.

Number 3!

Movie Covers.

Okay, just a pet peeve of mine - the book cover is changed to feature the movie actors.

Why? The cover was great! Stop putting soon to be irrelevant people on the cover when they really don't add to the book at all.

I think a nice, designed book cover can actually add to the story and really provide some hints to the plot and the meaning.

Actors on book covers just promote their movie - which is not always the book.

I just hate it. Please stop.

Number 4!

Princesses.

This one is like number 1 - I just hate the lack of planning and depth in most of these princess stories.

Perhaps I'm limiting myself based on bad experiences, but princesses and princes and royalty in books is so surface level, and a lot focuses on riches and power to develop plot.

I want princesses to play in politics. I want princesses who are training to run their country.

If the main prince(ss) is only living on name or money and not political power and upheaval, just make the character rich. There is no need for royalty when what you want is money.

Number 5!

A series with a "set-up" book 1.

For this one, I have a very specific example - Divergent by Veronica Roth.

My pet peeve here that I hate to see repeated is the way the first book in this series is very clearly The First Book in a SERIES.

This entire book set up the world of Divergent, really just going through the motions of life, with a few hints that Tris was different and special but the only real whole-world conflict that changed everything was introduced in the last quarter of the book - if that.

If you are aware of writing/novel structures, you may have heard of the Hero's Journey where the main character first establishes their daily life, but after about the first 3rd of the book, something pulls the character into a "new world" (literally or figuratively). 

In Divergent, this pull happened super late like the whole book was just Act 1 of 3.

No.

I want the first book to be a book in and of itself. Not just a set-up for a series.

This is not an attack on Divergent, I liked the series well enough.

But I think world building and development can be spread across the series, not front-logged in book 1.

Please let this trend die. Please.

So there you have it! Agree? Disagree? 

Check out next week for another Top 5 Wednesday!