Shouldn’t what makes or breaks a book — how it’s judged and how you value it — be made on a case-by-case basis? To me, identifying a thing, no matter how broad or specific, that you think will ALWAYS bug you about a book is counterproductive and short-sighted.

And worse, a literary pet peeve becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, severely limiting your exposure to great books. That shouldn’t be: There are exceptions to every rule, and every rule is made to be broken.