What Makes a Good Book GOOD/Bad Book BAD?

[Renkon Root]

So, this is another question I like to bring up every now and again with different people, the question of what makes a "good book" good and a "bad book" bad?

Is it the author's narrative style?
Is it the subject they're writing about?
Is it the relative complexity or simplicity of their subject?
Is it their grammar and/or word usage?
Their character development?
How many sub-plots they incorporate?
How "original" the work is?
How "deep" the work is?
Or, is it simply whether or not the reader enjoys the work that makes it a "good book"?

What is your take on the matter?

 

[Shearaha]

I think it's a combination of things. For example, before all the hype I actually enjoyed Twilight. It was refershing to read a first person naritive, something I hadn't seen in a while. I also didn't take it seriously. I found the over the top descriptions humorous. It was a fluff read.

Now had I initially taken it seriously, it was a terrible book. It's repetative, the characters are cardboard cutouts and far too much time is spent agonizing over the fact that the narrator doesn't find herself attractive. It's far from orriginal and the one attempt to make it orriginal removes itse;f so far from the lore that it really doesn't even count anymore.  

[Thorns and Spices]

Sort of a mixture of all of the above. Narrative style and writing ability really are the top ones, though... having said that, I think Dickens is pretty crap because all his characters are so dull and not nearly rounded out enough. His narrative's alright, so I wouldn't say he was a bad author or anything, I just find his work dull.

It's certainly not subject matter, because a good author can make a dull subject interesting and a bad one can make something marvellous a struggle and chore to read. Look at Ian Stewart. He makes maths cool. With non-fic particularly it's the author's passion for the subject and their ability to convey that passion and the subject itself that make the book a good one.

Now the real example of terrible books has gotta be Dan Brown, and not because they turned so much of the world into complete morons. He just cannot form an elegant sentence. Lots of people enjoyed these books, but I absolutely refuse, by any stretch, to say that they are at all "good". They are not good. They are a SIN and a CRIME. I don't care how exciting some people find the plot. If it's poorly written, it is a bad book, and that's it.

Now I've been readin the parasol protectorate. These are not good books. The writing style.... well, it may well improve because I think the author is new to published writing. It's clunky in places. Quite a few sentences simply aren't smooth or well-composed. They characters are quite pleasing, the setting is, if not imaginative, then at least exciting. They certainly have things going for them, these books. I enjoyed them, but I make no pretence that they're good books.

In contrast, the best books are the ones with the best writing style. Pratchett is a god, although there's more than just his style that make his books good: his characters are thorough and real, his setting is more real than many well-researched novels set in actual real-world places. His humour is delicious, his plots well-structured, his sneaky little real-world references and word-games identified with great pleasure. When someone makes a joke in Latin and doesn't bother to translate it - that's an author one can get alongside.

Lolita has to be one of the best books ever written in English. The prose is beyond beautiful. The characters aren't terribly well-rounded, but the thing is, you don't care. Because that's not the point. The entire book is an exercise in love and agony. A confession. It's spectacular. "Ladies and gentlemen, exhibit number one is what the seraphs, the misinformed, simple, noble-winged seraphs, envied. Look at this tangle of thorns."  

[Esiris]

Narrative style and technical writing skills are important to me, but it can have those- but if it doesn't strike me as witty or make me think, I'll count it as an okay book.  

[ncsweet]

I'm not a terribly picky reader, and as long as the author can suck me in and make me want to know how it all ends then I can go for just about anything.

Having said that though, I don't like it when an author tries to force a plot (or who tries to stick to a formula just because it's worked before). Broken record here sweatdrop , but I love Jacqueline Carey - however her newest trilogy has been sooooo disappointing, because the whole storyline feels forced.

I do like when a book is well researched and/or attention is paid to details. I like to be able to visualize what I'm reading, and that's hard to do when an author ignores the little things.  

[Shearaha]

ncsweet

I'm not a terribly picky reader, and as long as the author can suck me in and make me want to know how it all ends then I can go for just about anything.

Having said that though, I don't like it when an author tries to force a plot (or who tries to stick to a formula just because it's worked before). Broken record here sweatdrop , but I love Jacqueline Carey - however her newest trilogy has been sooooo disappointing, because the whole storyline feels forced.

I do like when a book is well researched and/or attention is paid to details. I like to be able to visualize what I'm reading, and that's hard to do when an author ignores the little things.

I'd like to add to this in that it can also ruin a book when it feels like the author rushed it to publication. Christeen Fehan, my favorite romance author, has been doing this recently. She's a bit formulaic, but still has characters who are individuals and really sucks you in. But the last 2 books in her Carpathian series have felt very rushed. As a reader I could tell that she hadn't spent as much time with these characters as she had her previous ones, and it was very disapointing.  

[ncsweet]

Shearaha

ncsweet

I'm not a terribly picky reader, and as long as the author can suck me in and make me want to know how it all ends then I can go for just about anything.

Having said that though, I don't like it when an author tries to force a plot (or who tries to stick to a formula just because it's worked before). Broken record here sweatdrop , but I love Jacqueline Carey - however her newest trilogy has been sooooo disappointing, because the whole storyline feels forced.

I do like when a book is well researched and/or attention is paid to details. I like to be able to visualize what I'm reading, and that's hard to do when an author ignores the little things.

I'd like to add to this in that it can also ruin a book when it feels like the author rushed it to publication. Christeen Fehan, my favorite romance author, has been doing this recently. She's a bit formulaic, but still has characters who are individuals and really sucks you in. But the last 2 books in her Carpathian series have felt very rushed. As a reader I could tell that she hadn't spent as much time with these characters as she had her previous ones, and it was very disapointing.

I'm not a big fan of the Carpathian series (probably for that same reason) - I never read any of the earlier ones, but I picked one or two after reading her Drake Sisters series, and didn't like them nearly as much. Her Ghostwalker series is starting to go the same way. The first few were not too bad, but now it's just getting ridiculous.  

[Dr Tabitha]

Hrm...
Well the type of story (genre) matters the most to me.
Fantasy in this day and age is the most popular, and it's the most easiest to write about. Fantasy authors write what creeks in their heads and might fasinate all people around them.
Then again, there are people that hate the genre of Fantasy and would prefer detectives which have little or no fantasy in them and write real life crimes that might happen.
But that's just my small oppinion... mrgreen  

[Shearaha]

ncsweet

I'm not a big fan of the Carpathian series (probably for that same reason) - I never read any of the earlier ones, but I picked one or two after reading her Drake Sisters series, and didn't like them nearly as much. Her Ghostwalker series is starting to go the same way. The first few were not too bad, but now it's just getting ridiculous.

The first few are great. Jacques story is just so, so... I can't explaine it, but I just love to read his story. It's the second book, Dark Desire. Jacques and Shea are just such engaging characters. It's also one of those books that every time I read it I end up crying. I usually end up crying at several points.

I haven't read some of the more recent Ghostwalker books, like the last 3 or 4, I think. I certinaly enjoyed the ones I've read, but the fact that I always just got most of her books from the library and I currently have a massive fine is really hampering my pleasure reading.  

[Sanguina Cruenta]

Hey guys, you should make a Christine Feehan thread. xd  

[xxEverBluexx]

I've been locked inside that house, all the while You hold key
And I've been dying to get out, though that might be the death of me

I think what makes a book good is the audience. A lot of what you take from a book depends on what you bring to it. You have to first be on the same cultural basis with an author (like most high school students don't like Homer's works because it was written for a different culture or verses from the Bible get mistranslated or misunderstood because they're taken out of cultural context), and from there down it gets pretty subjective.

For me personally, the narrative, characters, plot and subject (I'm including setting and language with subject) are all relatively important. Any of them can ruin a good story, and if one is done exceptionally well they can carry an average story. Hush Hush was ruined for me by the main character who narrated it. I couldn't stand Nora. The Amber Spyglass was a completely different story; the anti-religious theme put me off, but I loved Lyra and Pan and couldn't abandon reading about them. I really love mythical stories, so I'll read the same plot about a girl who gets involved with the fairy world only to have to try to get out of it again, just because I like the subject. Airborn I loved because of how it was told, and not because I was actually interested in airships.The plot of a young hero who finds out he has a great destiny and goes out to fulfill it actually fascinates me, despite it being done so many times. A good story, for me, will have strong characters, a narrative that grabs me, and a plot that's entirely original with a subject I love, and interesting sub-plots and witty humor thrown in.

And all I'm asking is for You to do what you can with me
But I can't ask You to give what You already gave

 

[tai-lerr--x]

I always like to think that it's the character that makes the book! If there is no character development throughout the story, or the character is too flat and not dynamic enough, then there just won't be any reason to read the book. I like being able to bond and relate to a character... I want to root for someone who deserves to win for once, or watch a young adolescent learn something new about themselves, like a life lesson, or watch a mean and selfish character get flushed down the toilet! If you don't care about the characters enough, you won't care what happens to them.