What makes a book enjoyable?

[Aiculík]

Most of us would agree that romantic novels - I mean those with hugging pairs on cover... where either he is dark and passionate and she blond and cold or the other way round :D are not good books. Right?

Ok, but why? Why is Dan Brown or Danielle Steel considered mediocre, or bad authors? What is it that makes book good? What are your criteria?

Here are mine:

1. The book must be unique and original . I read few those romantic novels, when I was about twelve. But I found out that they're all the same, that I can predict what will happen and how will it finished, and that, if I wanted, I'd be able to write at least one such book per week (although at that time I didn't have any practical experiece... neither with writing, nor with passion :lol: ) Or take phantasy books - about two thirds are just clones of few really good ones (like LotR, for example).

2. It must be believable and realistic, and same goes for characters.That doesn't mean I don't read anything else than realism. But, even if the book is in some fictional world (and in fact, every book is in the fictional world), it must have some logic. For example, I love Kafka's The Metamorphosis, where a traveling salesman, Gregor Samsa, wakes up to find himself transformed into a monstrous vermin. So it is absurd, and symbolic. However, his feelings, and behaviour of other members of his are very believable.

3. It must be well written. By that I mean, that every word is used for some purpose, that the author doesn't use chliches but thries to find his own way of using the language - and it works well.

4. It must have a "message", make me think. Asking questions. Trying to look for the answers. Really good books are tempting me to read them again. And every time I do, I find out something else.

[JCamilo]

1 - Unique and original does not mean an unique and original story but an unique and original form to tell that story. Just note Shakespeare and how he never told a new story but (sometimes even stories that he did tell before) old stories in a new way. Some "clones" are masterworks - Aeneid for example mirrors the Iliad and Odissey a lot.
2 - The book must not be believable or realistic, although by your description you just did not found the correct word. You mean the book must seduce the reader to accept the text and keep reading, no matter how Mallarme like the book was written. However this is not about quality, it is about style.
3- Well that is everything... a good book is well written, the use of vocabulary interesting, the elements the author proposed for the text (not the elements the reader expects to find) well placed, the theme must be developed, the style must be under the writter domain, the relation with the influences well placed. Things like this are what really matter.
4 - A bad text may also have a message and make you think. A good example are some scietific texts who do have a message and are not exactly well written. But yes, a good book provokes new readings, new interpretations. However this sometimes depends more on the reader than the book.

[Aiculík]

Well - truth is I didn't read either Illiad or Aeneid (and I don't think I will... but who knows). But... somehow, clones don't work with me. Even if it is considered a masterpiece by most critics - I make my own opinioin of the book and I don't care if it's different from what other people think about it. If it doesn't bring anything new to the story, or if it doesn't at least show it from different point of view... different style is not enough for me, it's still just a clone and I will never like it as much as original. Book can be isnpired, influenced by another book, it may have same theme and even motives, that's fine and I don't mind that. But it shouldn't be just a clone.

Of course, every literary book is just fiction, showing only author's perception of reality... what I meant is, that even postmodern or absurd texts must have certain logic... but Eco explains it much better than me. :D

If something made me think, I wouldn't rate is as completely bad text. But of course, I was talking about literary texts. Scientific texts have different puropse than literary texts, they are not supposed to have some literary quality and thus can't be rated as "bad" texts for not having them.

[metal134]

I think that's a very difficult question to answer. I think that if it were easy to ascertain why one book is good but another isn't, there would be nothing but good books. But I think I can give a few basic ideas of what I really like and don't like. I like style. Believe me, I value substance over style, but I think style is important. Authors like Victor Hugo or Fyodor Dostoyevsky have great stories, but they write in such a fashion that the way in which the story is told is almost philosophical. Just their very syntax and descriptiveness makes the experience richer; makes what you are reading seem more profound. In the case of someone like Brown or Steele, they may tell a good story, but it is too simplistic. Everything is just laid out there and there is no underlying meaning to what they are saying. There is nothing about their word choice that will leave a web on preponderance in your brain. Some people value simplicity and wear it as a badge of honor. I do not. I value complexity nand multi-layeredness; something that bears a profoundness beyond the story that is being told. Hugo and Dostoyevsky told some wonderful stories, but their stories were merely a vehicle to something else. Dumas and Wilde were all about the story, but their stories still carried a sense of profoundness.
That's not to say that I can't enjoy the occasional pulp; i.e. Stephen King or Anne Rice, but they don't carry the impact for me of a Steinbeck or a Faulkner.

[bazarov]

Most of us would agree that romantic novels - I mean those with hugging pairs on cover... where either he is dark and passionate and she blond and cold or the other way round :D are not good books. Right?

Ok, but why? Why is Dan Brown or Danielle Steel considered mediocre, or bad authors? What is it that makes book good? What are your criteria?

Here are mine:

1. The book must be unique and original . I read few those romantic novels, when I was about twelve. But I found out that they're all the same, that I can predict what will happen and how will it finished, and that, if I wanted, I'd be able to write at least one such book per week (although at that time I didn't have any practical experiece... neither with writing, nor with passion :lol: ) Or take phantasy books - about two thirds are just clones of few really good ones (like LotR, for example).

2. It must be believable and realistic, and same goes for characters.That doesn't mean I don't read anything else than realism. But, even if the book is in some fictional world (and in fact, every book is in the fictional world), it must have some logic. For example, I love Kafka's The Metamorphosis, where a traveling salesman, Gregor Samsa, wakes up to find himself transformed into a monstrous vermin. So it is absurd, and symbolic. However, his feelings, and behaviour of other members of his are very believable.

3. It must be well written. By that I mean, that every word is used for some purpose, that the author doesn't use chliches but thries to find his own way of using the language - and it works well.

4. It must have a "message", make me think. Asking questions. Trying to look for the answers. Really good books are tempting me to read them again. And every time I do, I find out something else.

I must agree with almost everything you said. :thumbs_up
But book doesn't have to be realistic at all; take Hamlet or Master and Margarita, Animal Farm or your Eco( Baudlino), they aren't real but the style and plot are so good and all metaphors are very clear so you actually never put a on question their reality.

[JCamilo]

Well - truth is I didn't read either Illiad or Aeneid (and I don't think I will... but who knows). But... somehow, clones don't work with me. Even if it is considered a masterpiece by most critics - I make my own opinioin of the book and I don't care if it's different from what other people think about it. If it doesn't bring anything new to the story, or if it doesn't at least show it from different point of view... different style is not enough for me, it's still just a clone and I will never like it as much as original. Book can be isnpired, influenced by another book, it may have same theme and even motives, that's fine and I don't mind that. But it shouldn't be just a clone.

True, but what the new works bring as new is rarely a new story. Some writers, very good writers, write the same story everytime.
It is of course not just different style (although sometimes we may call what is different a matter of style), but a different technique, different vocabulary work, different view on a similar theme but with the same story.
Quality is of course adding something. The idea of Proust that you being to write when you feel you have to complete the text you just read. Or even Harold Bloom notion that new works are born from misuderstandings of the old works.
A good example is Paulo Coelho. Awful writer for several reasons. One of those is that he gets old ideas (he is too near to plagiasism actually) and what he does ? Just repeat it, even worst, in a even more simple way.
Then we get Borges and the same text and idea, increases in complexity.


Of course, every literary book is just fiction, showing only author's perception of reality... what I meant is, that even postmodern or absurd texts must have certain logic... but Eco explains it much better than me. :D

Of course they have some logic or more exactly, structure. But the structure is more a consequence of the quality of the author in what really matters (dealing with the theme, vocabulary, etc). And since sometimes the structure is hidden, or we can not even discern what is there (even because we are reading, working with your percetion of reality, so we may miss the writer perception) and yet we can be touched by the quality of a work.
The point, I want to make, is that your proposal is to tell what makes a good book from a bad book, and the structure of the work is not a reliable place to measure it. For once, it would demand that we understand (in a academic level and while academics are really those who have more toys to stabilish quality in a text, they are not only those who can perceive it) a text to see how good it is. And it is not necessary.
And sometimes bad texts have great and efficienty logic and structure. I mean, the Detective plot structure is dominated by several writers but not all of them managed to get the best of the text. In the world of the best-seller the structure can be in several books and not the quality.


If something made me think, I wouldn't rate is as completely bad text. But of course, I was talking about literary texts. Scientific texts have different puropse than literary texts, they are not supposed to have some literary quality and thus can't be rated as "bad" texts for not having them.

Sure, we can not judge a scientific text for aesthetical vallues since this is not the objective of the text. But we can not eliminate the texts. Journalistic texts are not exactly bright but they cause reactions because the techinique is all there to explore the subject. Your example , Dan Brown caused reactions and maybe even thinking (or not) with a not good text.
And sometimes great texts fail to affect in any way a reader (for a thousand reasons). This reaction, thinking or not, is more about the reader than the text itself.
In a way, i prefer the notion that good texts lead to other texts. One good reading leads to another.

[EAP]

The book should be well written and entertaining.

[optimisticnad]

Should have some meaning or value to me.

Not sure about it being 'believable and realistic'. I disagree. And their such obscure terms anyway!

[Stieg]

Simply entertaining and/or stimulating, literature breaks too many rules. But these two factors suffice all other factor can be present or amiss yet doesn't necessarily decrease or increase the value of the work.

[jenoir]

I think I need two things to be able to enjoy a book.

Firstly, a character that I can relate to. I need to be able to feel empathy for someone, otherwise I can't immerse myself in what is going on or bring myself to care about how the plot is going to unfold.

Secondly, some kind of conflict, usually philosophical. An existential crisis, for example, will always get me thinking and pondering the big, often unanswerable questions of life.

[JCamilo]

There is a difference between what is a book I like and what is a good book. A good book must be good for everyone.
So, a character to relate, is not usable. Even because several texts have no characters.
Enterteiment ? Not at all. Some great books are hard to be heard and some bad books are frankly, fun.

[JBI]

For me it is language. That's why I'm so into the classics, since the language is so amazing. To me style is the most important thing. A good author can take a simple, perhaps dull story, and turn it into something truly amazing just by the way he/she writes. Whereas with the best story, a crummy author can't do much good/justice.

I feel that an alright author with an amazing plot can produce an alright book,
an amazing author with an alright plot can produce an alright book,
and an Amazing author with a good story/idea can produce a "good" book.

There are plenty of authors with all right ideas these days, but very few these days, or ever, have had the necessary talent to pull off the job beautifully. I look at literature as art, there are many artists, but how many Raphaels are there out there?

[Aiculík]

There is a difference between what is a book I like and what is a good book. A good book must be good for everyone.
So, a character to relate, is not usable. Even because several texts have no characters.
Enterteiment ? Not at all. Some great books are hard to be heard and some bad books are frankly, fun.

Is there a book that is good for everyone?

For example, I love Foucalt's Pendulum by Eco; my sister says its crap and that The Name of the Rose is much better. She thinks that Marquez's best book is A Hundred Years of Solitude; but I prefer A Chronicle of Death Foretold. That means, that these books are not good for everyone - so does that mean they are not good books at all?

So in what way should be book "good for everyone"? What does it mean - "good", anyway? That's exactly what I wanted to find when I started this topic. :)

[Reccura]

Most of us would agree that romantic novels - I mean those with hugging pairs on cover... where either he is dark and passionate and she blond and cold or the other way round :D are not good books. Right?

Ok, but why? Why is Dan Brown or Danielle Steel considered mediocre, or bad authors? What is it that makes book good? What are your criteria?

Here are mine:

1. The book must be unique and original . I read few those romantic novels, when I was about twelve. But I found out that they're all the same, that I can predict what will happen and how will it finished, and that, if I wanted, I'd be able to write at least one such book per week (although at that time I didn't have any practical experiece... neither with writing, nor with passion :lol: ) Or take phantasy books - about two thirds are just clones of few really good ones (like LotR, for example).

2. It must be believable and realistic, and same goes for characters.That doesn't mean I don't read anything else than realism. But, even if the book is in some fictional world (and in fact, every book is in the fictional world), it must have some logic. For example, I love Kafka's The Metamorphosis, where a traveling salesman, Gregor Samsa, wakes up to find himself transformed into a monstrous vermin. So it is absurd, and symbolic. However, his feelings, and behaviour of other members of his are very believable.

3. It must be well written. By that I mean, that every word is used for some purpose, that the author doesn't use chliches but thries to find his own way of using the language - and it works well.

4. It must have a "message", make me think. Asking questions. Trying to look for the answers. Really good books are tempting me to read them again. And every time I do, I find out something else.

Very true. All that you said.

Authors should use different words every after book, if you get what I mean.
A good book has to have heart in it, not just the type that

"Oh, let me finish this so I could be done with it." kind.

Sometimes I write stories that sound like that, but I delete it right after I read it. I'm a frustrated writer, and I can't finish the stories that I write.

And a good book has a soul, if you know what it means.

[JCamilo]

Is there a book that is good for everyone?

For example, I love Foucalt's Pendulum by Eco; my sister says its crap and that The Name of the Rose is much better. She thinks that Marquez's best book is A Hundred Years of Solitude; but I prefer A Chronicle of Death Foretold. That means, that these books are not good for everyone - so does that mean they are not good books at all?

So in what way should be book "good for everyone"? What does it mean - "good", anyway? That's exactly what I wanted to find when I started this topic. :)

Yes, but there is not a book that everyone will enjoy.
For example, no matter what, the aesthetical merits of the Divine Comedy can not be denied. They won't be changed if Jack Joe reads it and dislike. (How could they?).
Your argument and your sister's do not reflect what is a good book, but what was the books you two more liked to read. They reflect the personal reading experience, which is not enough for an aesthetical merit. (Which I meant for good. Just consider your own question and your own answer - You never said what make one book good is being liked by everyone, so you already knew that no book, no matter how good, can please everyone).

You like Eco, so think about his analyses about the reader. How there is different levels of readers, different levels of reading. There is certain books that are aimed to please a selected group and will never please other groups. (If we just think, no classic is aimed to please us, but the public alive when the classic was written, for example.)
And going far, there is times we are not pleased for a book when we try to read it at first time. But a second time (or third, whenever) we may like it. Your experience dictate the enjoyment but did not changed the book itself and neither its qualities.
The truth is that a sane reader will have in his list a book that he will have to say "I know that this book is good but I can not like it."

[Aiculík]

For example, no matter what, the aesthetical merits of the Divine Comedy can not be denied.


The truth is that a sane reader will have in his list a book that he will have to say "I know that this book is good but I can not like it."

I know Eco's theories and I can see your point. :) But, who and how will decide "aesthetical merit" of a book? Who would decide that the book is "really good" and by which criteria?

That's what I want to know. :)

[JCamilo]

The Who is the culture and those responsable for its production - meaning, the writers are those how will set the vallue of the aesthetical merit. (Literature justify itself). (Not going also in the direction of the consipiracy of one group to determine what is good, it is a secular process, not localized and if you like Eco, you know what to think about conspiracies theories :))

How is the critical analyse of those works. And how you find those works ? They stand up by the amount of influence, the impact, the timeless trait.
Then you have the artists constant dialogue-debate with the past, either as influence or negation of those works.

[Aiculík]

You mean authors will set the value of the aesthetical merit of their own books? Would that be objective? Or do they set the value of the aesthetical merit of books by other authors? What about critics, and readers - have they no word in it?

"Culture" is only another abstract therm. "Culture" can't decide anything. Only people who produce and consume (couldn't find better word) culture can. I think its the reader who decides if the book is good or not, because both authors and critics are readers as well. Aesthetical values are set by more experienced, readers, more trained, so to say. Simply, if one had read hundreds, or even thousands of books - if he reads them critically - he becomes more sensitive also for aesthetical values. He can see, for example, that one author uses language in more innovative or creative way than another. That two stories of two different authors are similar, but one is much more interesting, entertaining, or has better style.

It's these experienced, critical readers, that set aesthetical value of some book. Most of other people humbly accept their authority. :) But still, these aesthetical values are not objective, eternal, unchangeable. Many authors, higly valued and appreciated in the past, are today either forgoten, or regarded as "average".

But in the end, it's masses - "average" readers (those who don't read so often, or who don't bother to analyse the book in detail - no offence meant to anyone), who decide if the book is really good. For if they don't read it, the book is forgotten, lost, its influence vanished, and only those few "elite" readers (regarded by others as literary freaks :D ) read it. For example, most average readers would say that they love classics - but, most of them means autors from the period of Realism and Romanticism; you woldn't find many who read Baroque authors.

[ennison]

'Good' is a lose term here. Bit like'fat'. Or 'nice' Or 'thick'. Or .....
As my pal Paddy once said 'This beer's awful, I'll be glad when I've had enough' Only he used another word for 'awful'

[Pensive]

Bring me a suspenseful book (or entertaining in any other way), and I would include it in my list of "good books".

[JCamilo]

You mean authors will set the value of the aesthetical merit of their own books? Would that be objective? Or do they set the value of the aesthetical merit of books by other authors? What about critics, and readers - have they no word in it?

Not just their own books, but everyone's else book.
Critics, yes, if their texts (and you can see I consider critics as writers too) keep the "ball rolling". In the end, the critic work is to analyse the aesthetical vallue, not to create it. Have you seen how many critics scream that "x" is not good, etc and despite this they turn to be aesthetical vallues?
Readers? Nope, they are a target, they are more a effect of the quality, not what determine it.


"Culture" is only another abstract therm. "Culture" can't decide anything. Only people who produce and consume (couldn't find better word) culture can.

culture as the movements, the artists, the artwork...


I think its the reader who decides if the book is good or not, because both authors and critics are readers as well.

Ah, if you think in this way. Sure.
But not all readers are writers (and not all writers produce enough material and quality to do any influence either). But I mean readers, as just the other side of the dialogue.
If you consider that a writer imagine his ideal reader then I would say this "Ideal reader" (that is an imaginary being) is certainly the reader that do the difference.


Aesthetical values are set by more experienced, readers, more trained, so to say. Simply, if one had read hundreds, or even thousands of books - if he reads them critically - he becomes more sensitive also for aesthetical values. He can see, for example, that one author uses language in more innovative or creative way than another. That two stories of two different authors are similar, but one is much more interesting, entertaining, or has better style.

Oh, yes. But they did not set it. They notice it. Who set the vallue? Joyce or those who read joyce? Joyce is the one who break the vallue, challenged the limits, we are (we readers) just his "victims"



But still, these aesthetical values are not objective, eternal, unchangeable. Many authors, higly valued and appreciated in the past, are today either forgoten, or regarded as "average".

Readers do not make any different, otherwise popular literature would be quality literature, and that is not always the truth. Those readers are formed by the reading of those authority, they do not form it. We already find the body of the aesthetica vallue representation and do not matter what I do, I can not change the fact that the Divine Comedy is divine.
For example, Voltaire - It is an experiencied Author right? Great critic, everything a mind desires to be. He mocked the Divine Comedy status. That was divine only because no one could read it. Did he change anything? No.
In your example, this is what culture (that vague term, because what is secular is vague) picks - the good authors survive, the bad, average, not quite so. Despite of the whoever is reading them or read them.


But in the end, it's masses - "average" readers (those who don't read so often, or who don't bother to analyse the book in detail - no offence meant to anyone), who decide if the book is really good. For if they don't read it, the book is forgotten, lost, its influence vanished, and only those few "elite" readers (regarded by others as literary freaks :D ) read it. For example, most average readers would say that they love classics - but, most of them means autors from the period of Realism and Romanticism; you woldn't find many who read Baroque authors.

Quite otherwise. The only period of massive reading is the XIX and XX century (of course XXI). And almost no one reads Homer, Ovid, Virgil, etc.
And they still THE VALLUE.
In fact they all wrote to an elit, since very few read until them.
And what about the popular best-sellers? Dan Brown is more read than Bocaccio. Dan Brown have not the aesthetical vallue, set by years and people like Bocaccio, despite the masses.
The only thing they generate are those endless complaints against canons, classics or saying a overated classic or author just because the personal experience of reading that given book was not good.
The influence of the old greats remain, despite the public.

[kandaurov]

A good book either entertains you or makes you think. Either hypnotises you for being so well-written (or by having such a great plot, or such well-developed characters) or makes you wonder about a thing or two.

[Adolescent09]

I've always construed a good read as thought provoking, indulgent (but not too much), and of a valid level of literary merit (effective writing and NO PROFANITY). Profanity seriously dumbs down literature.

[SleepyWitch]

A good book either entertains you or makes you think.
why not both of them? :)

[Dante Wodehouse]

My criteria consists of a number of alternatives. If a book achieves one of all sets of alternatives, it is very good, if it achieves at least one of all with more than one of some, it is a masterful work, if it achieves less than one per alternative set, it ranges from crap to not bad.

1~ Must be enjoyable or innovative
2~Must be well written or deliberately not so to reflect the characters i.e. Cry the Beloved Country has diction that reflects the simplistic main character.
3~Be either subversive or eloquent on inflicting their main point or message, or don't have a moral. Can also provide a good metaphor, such as Aesop's Fables.
4~No alternatives to these. Author cannot be arrogant or self-conscious. The author can reflect these qualities, but cannot possess them once they touch pen to paper.
5~Either must be a parody or don't take too much from other authors (Eragon is like Star Wars without lasers).
6~Witty or creative. Oscar Wilde may not have Shakespeare's metaphors (creative), but he has a sense of humour.

[kandaurov]

A good book either entertains you or makes you think.


why not both of them? :)

Because if a book can do both it's not just a good book, it's a great book :D

[srpbritlit]

I think a good book should have:
1.) Compelling and intriguing Character(s), Plot(s), Setting(s), Conflict(s), etc.
2.) Excellent use of rhetorical devices (metaphors, symbols, imagery, motifs, etc.)
3.) Thematic/philosophical arguments and messages driving the action
4.) Good use of language for descriptions and storytelling

[dramasnot6]

A good book is one that makes you question.

[Nightshade]

I was actually thinking of this when I was reading the Unbarable lightness of being. I think a good book is one that make you rember, that is when a charcter or place or situation is so recognisable that it makes you think of somthing youve known and brings all that added wealth to the story.

:D

[Lote-Tree]

Good book I think makes you see things in a different perspective.

[ForKnowledge]

If you like it doesn't that make it good. If everyone told you your favorite book was overrated or unoriginal or just plain bad would that matter. I don't think it does. Anyway who am I.

[tasnim]

What makes a book enjoyable?

I'm comparing Mansfield Park, which I’ve read frequently since I was ten, to Persuasion, which I have just begun reading. For me, the books I read when I was younger come first, the ones I’ve read outside the course second (e.g Pride and Prejudice), and those I'm studying last. This reverses the expected Austen order, potentially embarrassing.

I like to quote Eco in Postmodernism, Irony and the Enjoyable: 'capturing reader's dreams does not necessarily mean encouraging escape; it can also mean haunting them.' But are more ‘intellectual’ classics less enjoyable?