I avoid books which have . . .

long character development
coming-of-age themes
mystical fantasy focus
sci-fi plots

Update: gory violence and cruelty are also unwanted

Your steer-clear types?

Romance if it is too gooey. Also, I couldn't enjoy Outlander, which is a shame because it is so popular and has interesting themes, but the minute anything interesting happened, they had to have sex. I am not a prude, but it got tiring and boring.

I will read murder mysteries, but they can't be too gory.

Cute funny books with no plot are boring to me, which means I often read depressing books. That's not good either but sometimes you have to choose.

Books where they kill animals. For example, I used to love the Martin Walker series, which starts with Bruno, Chief of Police and has some murders in it, but 4 books into the series, SPOILER! his dog died. I haven't been able to read the rest even though I am sure they are good. Some day I will get back to them.

Too many suspects as with Agatha Christie.

overly descriptive sexual or violent detail,

another victim memoir (I appreciate the need for them to write it, but generally will not read it),

books that have a fascinating historical event or person but also a modern day connection so that I can relate. Nope don't need it!

and see I like cute (tho not too cute) funny books - think Lamb or Filth - because I desperatly need to find something to laugh about! That being said, cute is usually twee. I really will not read anything that is bad for my diabetes.

Explicit violence
Explicit cruelty
Explicit non-consensual sex
Misery porn
Beautiful writing (for certain values of "beautiful")

Lazy writing... such as:

-- using the same description every time a character is mentioned (kinky red hair)
-- spoilers/solutions from previous novels in a series (which I may not have read, and now don't need to)
-- fill... (in how many books do I need to read about a recurring character's obsession with using/seasoning a cast iron frying pan?)
-- bad editing/bad memory... (know your characters... brown eyes in one book, blue in another makes me want to throw the book against the wall)

If the writer doesn't care, why should the reader?

>5 haydninvienna: yeah beautifully written often means poetic, or prose so deep that you have to read two or three times to get what they are trying to say

Vampires, werewolves, zombies
Dystopian
Children or animals get hurt
Fantasy
Authors who make up scenes about real people without any factual proof - Examples The Widow of the South or March

Template plots -- male/female significant other dies, find unknown missive/trinket, leads to uncovering secret that helps (somehow) them heal, resolves with finding new love/renewed interest in living.

Formulaic construction -- troubled/devilish hero drawn into mystery, has female love interest whose protection drags him into deeper danger/ostracism, un-looked for youthful orphan/urchin sidekick required and obtained, solution of mystery leads to family reconciliation of estranged hero with father/fellow professionals, love interest's trepidations/doubts disappear and relationship sails over smooth waters once again, and finally the sidekick becomes family and sequels result.

Suicidal, drug-addicted, psychotic main characters.

Better stop before I convince myself that there are no more original, well written, books with complex but normal people whose stories intrigue me enough to read them. Why am I feeling so critical today?

Graphic violence, including torture
Wanton or senseless killing of innocents, including animals
Graphic sex
Occult, vampires, etcetera
"Breathless" romance
Formula fantasy
Political
Agenda-driven (what's wrong with just telling a story without ulterior motives?)

I think that covers it.

Stream of consciousness writing, I want some type of structure.

- graphic violence
- torture
- dystopian
- "flowery" writing
- political
- religious - will read about ancient or nature religions a lot, but I detest books which promote any of the three
monotheist religions or churches
- over-hyped books
- romance, much of nowadays' fantasy

Overdosed philosophy
Pure porn
Politics
Poor Fantasy
Meaningless romance
Poor Plot twists
Stereotype Novels

Graphic violence, especially torture - although The Orphan Master's Son is one of the best books I've ever read, and it was riddled with torture.
Non-consensual sex
Suicide (as a main plot point)
Animal cruelty/cruelty to babies and children
Cyberpunk
Magical Realism
Sports

2nd person narrative
Religious nonfiction

Feminist writing with an overly negative emphasis.
Fantasy genre.
Overtly political undertones.

>8 perennialreader:

Authors who make up scenes about real people without any factual proof - Examples The Widow of the South or March

It would be pretty hard to write historical fiction without making up scenes. But what one writes should at least be congruent with what we know about people's characters. Here's one I loathed for that reason: What the Lady Wants http://www.librarything.com/work/14928325/reviews/137078763 I read it for my book club and the author was present; I did not bite my tongue.

With regard to March, though, Brooks wasn't writing about real people. She took Alcott's fictional characters from Little Women, and made them act in ways that Alcott would have blanched at. I didn't hate that book, because at least Brooks writes well. http://www.librarything.com/work/106961/reviews/2110791

>17 lilithcat: I stand corrected. I usually love Brooks writing also but not this one.

I know nothing about What the Lady Wants. Doesn't sound like my kind of book.

Little Women was a fav book since childhood, and have enjoyed how the new movie mixes things up and adds depth to the characters. March should have been up my alley, esp since I like Brooks writing, but this had me fuming, what she did to March's character.Was very surprised it won the pulitzer.

>17 lilithcat: Agree about using fictional characters in ways that aren't congruent with the "canon"—Sherlock Holmes is a major, frequent example. I didn't finish Mycroft Holmes partly because I just didn't "believe" it, within the "Holmes universe". It's many years since I read The Seven-Per-cent Solution but I seem to recall that it fit into the canon pretty well.

It would be pretty hard to write historical fiction without making up scenes. But what one writes should at least be congruent with what we know about people's characters: Maybe accounts somewhat for the popularity of alt-history?

Children that are kidnapped and/or abused. Also the f word used over and over.
>2 krazy4katz: I agree. I watched it on TV last night and could have done without some parts. I like the story.

>20 haydninvienna: one of the reasons I really liked Laurie R. King's Holmes series is she did such a great job of fleshing out Holmes while keeping close to the canon.

>16 gatsby61:

About "Overtly political undertones." Wouldn't that add up to political overtones? :)

Haha!