imho what makes a book good is when you are relctant to put it down and after you wait expectantly for a sequel or another title by that author (this applies to novels i assume)
biographies and reference books are a whole different ball game

Similar to Steel,

1. Novel - When you can't put it down, it becomes like watching a movie unfold in your mind.

2. Biography - When it provides the info you want and then some, where you get to know the person it is about, better.

3. Tech book - When it helps you solve the problem/ learn what you are seeking.

A narrative voice that is strong, clear, and interesting. Not many readers will itch to read a story told by a protagonist who does not capture their attention. The protagonist does not have to be a good person or even a likeable person; but he or she does need to be interesting. Characters must be believable within the context of the story and have clearly defined personalities and motivations.Realistic behaviour and dialogue that sounds as though somebody might actually conceivably do or say it.

Complex situations and relationships are important - life is not a picture in black and white, there ought to be some sort of dilemma or problematic situation. You might want a story that is all sweetness and light, but I don;t know too many other people who will want to read it (and isn't this a mistake we always make with children's books? we try to shield them from the harshness of life by giving them sanitised harmless material yet this can be harmful in itself, long-term.) We learn from reading, from seeing how other people meet obstacles even if these are outlandish and bizarre.

A balance between different elements, action, description, and dialogue. Narration alone does not make a story; nor does dialogue. One plot does not a novel make: a number of sub-plots will keep readers interested and engaged.
I often stay up far too late into the night while reading a well-crafted book, promising myself, just one more chapter....

the last 3 books that had this effect on me and which i found entirely satisfactory reads (based on the above criteria) were:

Ringworld's Children by Larry Niven
Perfume by Patrick Susskind
Mason & Dixon by Thomas Pynchon

much of the above also applies to non-fiction, which doesn't have to be dull reference material at all. I've read some rattling good non-fiction which informs and entertains.





Edited by - Tawakalna on 11/27/2005 9:28:36 AM

Does re-readability feature somewhere inthat criteria?

For me it does, and increases the desire for any sequels.

what makes a book? two covers, and pages

a good book should be re-readable, you should be able to pick it up again and read it with a slightly different understanding every time. a good example of this is Heart of Darkness which speaks to you in a different way every time you read it (well it does to me!)

---

a good example of this is Heart of Darkness which speaks to you in a different way every time you read it (well it does to me!)

---

That's an interesting observation as the same has not happened to me. Then again, I generally think of HoD when certain contexts arise so it probably is more due to the fact that am limiting my view of the work based upon my internal bias.

A good book, to me, is one in which I learn something about the human condition, whether I want to or not. And I learn it because the work is so well crafted that I cannot help but keep reading it.

It already has been covered so I will keep the repetition short but the two most important of the many elements of a good book for me are narrative voice and the use of language.

*edit*
I hope the next edition of this site makes the forum coding more like the norms I've grown used to.

Edited by - Indy11 on 11/28/2005 10:56:52 AM

Edited by - Indy11 on 11/28/2005 10:57:57 AM

"in which I learn something about the human condition"

you're telling me you don't get that from HoD? you of all people? <scratches fringe of towel> sheesh Ed that's what it's really all about. like at the end when Marlowe doesn't tell Kurtz' betrothed what his last words really were and tells her a pack of lies because he can't bear to shatter her world. or that everyone pretends and perhaps really believes that theyre civilising the natives when they're clearly exploiting and killing them. its all about lies and masks and the choices we make to get through because we actually can't take the truth.

Only Kurtz could see the truth about himself and his situation and everyone else, and he couldn't live with that truth, it ate him away and destroyed his soul. But he acted on it and tried to be true to what he saw, foul though it was. Marlowe sees it to but shies away from truth, he can't act on it. And maybe no-one can or should, is that not the paradox Conrad is showing us?

I didn't mean to imply that I learned nothing about the human condition in HoD.

If I did, that was not my meaning.

Yes indeed. What Kurtz turned into after he got there is very resonant of things too real and too human. Especially today. It is no small accident that he chose the Belgian Congo as his ampitheater. Given what has happened in that region in only the past 10+ years, it makes HoD even more telling.

But I have a context in which I think of Conrad's work and I just described it above. That being the case, I too often am caught up in the external politics of the setting to see Marlow or Kurtz from more than one perspective, and the same one each time. Admittedly, the last time now being at least a decade ago.

Hmmmm. Maybe I need to read it afresh?

And as to those human condition themes, like the lying that Marlow did to the widow, it is difficult to keep Conrad's time in mind - to read him as an original thought provoker. Many of the plot turns in his stories as well as in most of good literature - today are so quickly turned into tv programming "page turner gimmicks" that what was once so moving has become too familiar and artificially hackneyed (if that's even possible) in the process: Because the devices are used without due accompaniment by a good story written well.

*edit*

The scene always gets me into a Citizen Kane frame of mind and I always expect Marlow to say "Rosebud." Which probably is due to the fact that I share Marlow's anger at that point and need to defuse it.



Edited by - Indy11 on 11/28/2005 1:54:12 PM

That scene also begs the question of whether or not lying can, in the "right" circumstances, be both noble and moral. And interesting argument, and an old one.

My take on it was that nothing noble nor moral is accomplished. Merely a showing of kindness or mercy for the sake of expedience.

Had Marlow spoken the truth, what practical result? And yet by not saying it, what delusions continue, whose life remains stuck in a phatasmagorical rut?

Well that's the thing. Was lying to a widow honourable? Or was his ommission noble yet immoral?

it was cowardice.