Sometimes I read a book and I get really into it and issues with minor details don't bother me.
And sometimes... not.
I recently finished reading a book about a group of scientists discovering a megalodon shark alive in the Pacific. Cool premise - giant, prehistoric shark is made aware of small, tasty humans and wreaks havoc. In practice, though, the story was less than satisfying. Most of the characters were unlikable - like, seriously, the loathsome wife existed ONLY so that you would kinda cheer when she got eaten by the shark. The protagonist was bland. The "mentor" figure who was set up to be a wise environmentalist made stupid decisions and put everyone at risk. The whole story would have been avoided if people followed basic safety protocol - not rushing a risky submarine dive when there was a storm coming,* not choosing a submarine pilot who has a known history of claustrophobia-induced panic attacks, and not choosing afore-mentioned submarine pilot who hadn't dove in 7 years and who was unfamiliar with the new vessel over an active pilot who had worked extensively with the new model and the lead pilot because she was "too emotional."
*Said storm** never actually occurred.
**I was hoping this would be like Jurassic Park and Sphere, where the action is set off by a storm that locks the characters into an area for the duration, as opposed to just being a flimsy excuse to ignore procedure.
The only character who was interesting (or, rather, could have been) was way under-utilized. A young scientist and submarine pilot, she was overshadowed by her older brother (also a submarine pilot) and her school-girl crush on the protagonist from when her father trained him years earlier. We were told she was too emotional to pilot a submarine into the Mariana Trench, but never actually saw her be more than just slightly aggravated (and this aggravation was always justified). Her one problem was that to begin with she was antagonistic and kept calling the main character misogynistic without provocation, but after about the first 30 pages that went away.
(Though I guess maybe these aren't minor details.)
Despite the fact that every few pages, something (the complaints above, logic bombs, etc.) would take me out of the story, I kept reading - mainly because I wanted to see what happened with the shark.
Maybe I'm being too picky. Maybe I should have given the book a chance to redeem itself, even though just 10 pages in I had already had so many issues with the characters that I kind of felt like I was looking for problems.
As I mentioned above, there have been other books where I notice issues - historical inaccuracies, characterization problems - that don't necessarily prevent me from enjoying the book. For example, a few months ago, I read a historical fiction piece about the Romanov sisters. The girls all came down with the measles right around the time their father abdicated, and someone mentioned antibiotics at one point. While I remember thinking, "I don't think antibiotics were around during WWI," the rest of the story was compelling enough that I let the slip go and kept reading.
Likewise, there's a series I'm currently reading that, while it is not historical, is heavily based on medieval England. It always throws me for a loop when they mention drinking coffee, but I remind myself that this is fantasy, not history.
So I guess maybe the question is not "am I being too picky?" but rather, "at what point do the problems become so overwhelming that you can't fully immerse yourself in the story anymore?" As a writer, I'd be curious to know what your reading turn-offs are: poor characterization? Historical or technical inaccuracies? Logistical problems?
Please comment - I often ask about things you enjoy as readers, but it's important to know what can ruin a story, too.