# In your opinion . . .



## Zell (Dec 27, 2010)

. . . what are some of the things that makes a good book good, and a bad book bad?  What is it for you that makes a work of fiction good or a fail?

For me, poor writing style bugs me as well as if the story and facts and details are not very realistic/plausible.  This just shoots the whole thing down and makes me want to stop reading the book and regret spending the money to get it.

By the way, I apologize for all the new threads but these things are interesting to me -- hopefully for you, too -- and I value your opinion.

Thanks!


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

Good book = if I can't put it down.

Bad book = if I go watch TV instead.


----------



## toddfonseca (Jun 27, 2009)

Daniel,

Great definition.
I'd add 
Great Book = Can't stop thinking about it long after I finished

Otherwise, a good book to me is one that is "genuine".  I used to think it had to have a compelling unresolved conflict but after reading Nathan Lowell's quarter share series and getting hooked on them I guess it isn't required because they were books i couldn't put down.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

1.  The writing has to be good and enjoyable.  It can't be a pain to read.

2.  The story and characters have to be interesting.  Nothing specific I can think of here, it just has to grab me and keep me turning pages.

3.  It can't be too predictable or formulaic.  If I can already tell what's going to happen, not much point in reading all of it.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

I have little tolerance for bad writing and less for cliche characters.

I'll read a book with a mediocre plot if the language is gorgeous.

The best books for me are ones that have lovely language and an engaging character that I become fascinated by. My favorite books are ones in which a character, whether a good person or not, faces a moral or ethical dilemma that challenges their sense of who they are.

I hate miz-lit and happily-ever-afters.


----------



## johnmedler (Feb 1, 2011)

My only standard is whether I go to sleep reading the book.


----------



## EllenR (Mar 31, 2009)

Daniel Arenson said:


> Good book = if I can't put it down.
> 
> Bad book = if I go watch TV instead.


Well said, Daniel. That about sums it up!

BTW, I'm reading _A Land of Ash_ now. Nice job! Definitely not boring.


----------



## Sandra Edwards (May 10, 2010)

Daniel Arenson said:


> Good book = if I can't put it down.
> 
> Bad book = if I go watch TV instead.


What Daniel said.


----------



## Mel Comley (Oct 13, 2010)

If it doesn't grab me on the first page, I move on to the next book never to return!


----------



## TheRiddler (Nov 11, 2010)

Agree with what Daniel said.

Also, a good book to me has me flying through the pages, not caring what the writing style is, or what the narration style is.

If I'm noticing these things then it breaks me out of the story, and is by definition not a 'great' book.


----------



## JenniferBecton (Oct 21, 2010)

Blah blah reading--you know, the stuff that really should have been edited away--is a book killer to me. I am all for eloquent language and descriptions, but everything has to move the plot forward. If the lovely 20-page description of the tree isn't doing something to advance the plot, I skip the passage, if not the whole book.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Zell said:


> . . . what are some of the things that makes a good book good, and a bad book bad? What is it for you that makes a work of fiction good or a fail?


Unrealistic dialogue and poor/unrealistic character development (including simply boring characters) is what bothers me the most with historical fiction. The dialogue and writing style have to sound authentically historical in order to keep me interested. In other genres I'm not as particular about great writing style or even character development as long as the plot is interesting but events that don't make sense annoy me (I thinking of action/thrillers here).


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

To paraphrase Tolstoy “Good books are all alike; every bad book is bad in its own way.” 

In the best books, the author vanishes, leaving nothing but the story. You almost forget about the book, because the book transports you.

But there are so many ways for a book to be bad. Characters that don't speak or behave like people, inconsistent characters, stiff writing.


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

Daniel Arenson said:


> Good book = if I can't put it down.
> 
> Bad book = if I go watch TV instead.


Slight modification to this excellent definition -

*Good book *- can't put it down, must finish, and then find more by the author

*Bad book *- become angry that I paid money for this, and angrier at the author for writing it, and angrier at the people who recommended it, and then there is blogging, oh yes, there will be blogging, angry blogging!


----------



## Zell (Dec 27, 2010)

history_lover said:


> Unrealistic dialogue and poor/unrealistic character development (including simply boring characters) is what bothers me the most with historical fiction. The dialogue and writing style have to sound authentically historical in order to keep me interested. In other genres I'm not as particular about great writing style or even character development as long as the plot is interesting but events that don't make sense annoy me (I thinking of action/thrillers here).


You wouldn't like The Hangman's Daughter.


----------



## theraven (Dec 30, 2009)

For me, it's all about the motivation and the ending. If I can understand why the characters are making their decisions then I'm good. If the characters seem to make choices that are out of character or don't make sense then I kind of check out and place that book in the bad category. And a cop-out ending will ruin an otherwise great book for me.


----------



## Zell (Dec 27, 2010)

QuantumIguana said:


> In the best books, the author vanishes, leaving nothing but the story. You almost forget about the book, because the book transports you.


Great comment. I like that and totally agree.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Zell said:


> You wouldn't like The Hangman's Daughter.


True.


----------



## RobynB (Jan 4, 2011)

What Daniel and Todd and QuantumIguana said.

It's also so very subjective -- one person's "must read, couldn't put it down" is another person's yawner. That's why it drives me nuts when people (not you guys, but other people) make blanket statements like "Dan Brown can't write" or "Brown's book is crap." I'm not saying I love Dan Brown or don't love him, but that sort of critique isn't helpful in deciding what makes a book good in _my_ eyes. I try never to fault or judge someone on their taste in books. Just because I might not read it or not like it doesn't make it any less of a book (and for the purpose of this argument, let's assume the books we're talking about have been copyedited...I agree that incessant grammar and punctuation mistakes are intolerable). I truly believe there's writing and writers out there for all of us (and likewise, we writers can find an audience as well).

There. I feel better. 

But seriously, what Daniel and Todd and QuantumIguana said.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Zell said:


> You wouldn't like The Hangman's Daughter.


I wasn't really interested in it to begin with but if you'd like to elaborate, feel free, because I'm not sure exactly which part of my post you were referring to.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

history_lover said:


> The dialogue and writing style have to sound authentically historical in order to keep me interested. ...but events that don't make sense annoy me.


I'm guessing these two. Dialogue is anachronistic, and the leper storyline is about 300-400 years off.


----------



## Will Write for Gruel (Oct 16, 2010)

I want strong writing, first and foremost. I can enjoy different styles, but I prefer lean prose for the most part. 

Then I want a story that grabs me. At least some of this will be a writer who doesn't get in the way of the story. 

Give me both of the above, and you'll hook me. Give me just one of the two and it's up in the air. 

P.S. I hate prologues. If you can't start the story with chapter one, try again!


----------



## CJArcher (Jan 22, 2011)

Asher MacDonald said:


> I want strong writing, first and foremost. I can enjoy different styles, but I prefer lean prose for the most part.
> 
> Then I want a story that grabs me. At least some of this will be a writer who doesn't get in the way of the story.
> 
> ...


Me too, Asher, writing style first and foremost. I can put up with a few inconsistancies or bad character choices if the style hooks me (note, I said FEW - riddle the book with too many stupid decisions and I'll put it down). A great style just sucks me in.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

I'm a sucker for sad or at least bitter-sweet endings. _Atonement_. _The Charioteer_. _The Game of Thrones_. Style is secondary to great characters. In fact, I don't like an intrusive style and writers who try to show off by shoving style in my face tend to get a quick shove out the door.

But you had better give me characters I care about or I'm gone.

I have no problem with prologues as long as something happens in it and it has a reason to be there.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

history_lover said:


> Unrealistic dialogue and poor/unrealistic character development (including simply boring characters) is what bothers me the most with historical fiction. The dialogue and writing style have to sound authentically historical in order to keep me interested. In other genres I'm not as particular about great writing style or even character development as long as the plot is interesting but events that don't make sense annoy me (I thinking of action/thrillers here).


What bothers me most in historical fiction is when they leave out the 'historical' part. Too many writers don't know the difference in fantasy and history. They ain't the same and imo if you don't want to bother with history, you should stick to fantasy.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

melcom said:


> If it doesn't grab me on the first page, I move on to the next book never to return!


Pretty much what I do as well.

To grab me there has to be something interesting about the story, characters, situation, etc. Too many times the first 10 pages will be a description of a location or the weather or what someone is wearing. I just put down a novel recently that started with 2 pages of descriptions of the protagonist in terms of love life, hair, clothes, career aspirations, etc and I was suitably bored. There didn't seem to be any point to the description at all. It's like having a photograph you are holding and looking at, described in excruciating detail to you by someone sitting next to you.


----------



## RobynB (Jan 4, 2011)

tim290280 said:


> Pretty much what I do as well.
> 
> To grab me there has to be something interesting about the story, characters, situation, etc. Too many times the first 10 pages will be a description of a location or the weather or what someone is wearing. I just put down a novel recently that started with 2 pages of descriptions of the protagonist in terms of love life, hair, clothes, career aspirations, etc and I was suitably bored. There didn't seem to be any point to the description at all. It's like having a photograph you are holding and looking at, described in excruciating detail to you by someone sitting next to you.


I think this is a fascinating thread, and your comment, Tim, reminded me of a discussion we recently had in my writers group. Thanks to free samples that people can download on their e-readers, it's even more critical now that the first pages kick butt and keep the readers' attention and interest.

Former agent and current writer Nathan Bransford recently held a first paragraph challenge on his blog. He invited everyone to post their first paragraphs from their works in progress. Over 1500 (!) people entered. He determined the finalists and then his readers voted for the winner. It was a fascinating exercise, and I encourage you to check it out:

http://blog.nathanbransford.com/2011/01/4th-sort-of-annual-stupendously.html

AND check out the reasons he and his other reader chose the finalists (and their observations about many of the other opening paragraphs): http://elenasolodow.blogspot.com/2011/01/ive-been-reading.html

Much of what they spotted in these paragraphs echoes what some of you are saying here. It's definitely forcing me to take another look at my opening graphs. A good thing.


----------



## James Everington (Dec 25, 2010)

I wouldn't like to define a rule of what makes a 'good book' as 10mins later I'd be bound to think of a book I love that breaks it. I can't think of a definition that would include, say, The Stand, Malone Dies, Mort, The Haunting of Hill House, Emma and Erewhon

In terms of a bad book, I'll throw down anything that seems obviously written with a film adaptation in mind.


----------



## Zell (Dec 27, 2010)

history_lover said:


> I wasn't really interested in it to begin with but if you'd like to elaborate, feel free, because I'm not sure exactly which part of my post you were referring to.


The Hangman's Daughter is everything you say in your initial post.


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

I'm going to say that a good book=a good story. Not much help in some ways but I'm working on the idea.

Bad writing will get in the way of a good story. But not necessarily kill it.

A good story=one where I know what is going to happen but keep reading anyway because I care enough about the people to hope it doesn't or does and it seems in doubt and I want to know for sure. Even though "they don't exist, dude. It's not real." That's not the point. The writer has done the job well enough that I care enough to want to be sure. (Phew, they do live happily ever after, even though there is a sad bit right here... *sniff*). I mean, you know the character(s) are going to succeed vs the main plot protagonist. That's a given. So a good book is one that makes me care HOW they succeed. Am I right?

Oh, literary writing can get in the way as much, or more, as bad writing imho.


----------



## Ruth Harris (Dec 26, 2010)

For me, it's energy that makes all the difference.  Energy meaning characters that seem alive, conflicts that seem insoluble (but in the end are), settings the reader can see, smell & feel, dialogue that whizzes along.  Style matters, too.  Originality of phrases, a palpable sense of time and place, no clunky sentences or dope-y, clichéd adverbs.
Not that I'm fussy or anything....;-)
LOVE AND MONEY
DECADES
HUSBANDS AND LOVERS


----------



## Jen Bluekissed (Jan 22, 2011)

Traits of a good book:

-Fast paced
-Characters learn from their mistakes
-Humor that adds to the plot
-A unique take on an old storyline
-Characters who are at least two dimensional, but I prefer three dimensional
-Complicated plots that are well written enough that I don't have to struggle to figure out where the author is taking the story

Traits of a bad book:
-Humor/sex/anything else that is just randomly in the book with no real purpose in driving the plot forward
-Protagonists/antagonists who are jerks and never learn not to be jerks
-HEA or HFN endings (I still struggle reading horror for this reason.  A character I like always seems to die.)
-Bad Kindle formatting
-Too much backstory.  If there's enough backstory that there should be a series or a prequel, I'd prefer the author just write it as a series or prequel.
-Being overhyped
-Being spammed by the author even if the book is the best thing since sliced bread


----------



## JFHilborne (Jan 22, 2011)

Good book: after finishing I search for more works by the author.
Bad book: _If_ I finish it, I vow never to read another by the author.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

JFHilborne said:


> Good book: after finishing I search for more works by the author.
> Bad book: _If_ I finish it, I vow never to read another by the author.


I agree with this definition.


----------



## KRCox (Feb 18, 2011)

Jen Bluekissed said:


> Traits of a good book:
> 
> -Fast paced
> -Characters learn from their mistakes
> ...


I like these lists, as I tend to enjoy lists, and I would add that:

If at the end of the book when I turn that last page, read that last sentence, and all I have left is to close it. That sucks. I WANT MORE! Those are good books.


----------



## Stephen T. Harper (Dec 20, 2010)

A good book sets up housekeeping in your head. You carry the characters and the situations with you all day.  You develop a hunger to keep going back to their world ( whether they are detectives, lawyers, wizards... Doesn't matter.  At some point in the story, the characters are so real, and you have such empathy for them, you are moved enough by some tragedy or triumph to cry.  Watery eyes means good.  If you actually make sound, like taking in a heavy breath, that's really good. If you are happy that no one else is in the room at he time so you don't have to explain what the he'll is wrong with you... That's a great book.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> What bothers me most in historical fiction is when they leave out the 'historical' part. Too many writers don't know the difference in fantasy and history. They ain't the same and imo if you don't want to bother with history, you should stick to fantasy.


Yeah fantasy and history are very different, that's why I don't post a lot of fantasy on my blog


----------



## bashfulreader (Jan 29, 2011)

Stephen T. Harper said:


> A good book sets up housekeeping in your head. You carry the characters and the situations with you all day. You develop a hunger to keep going back to their world ( whether they are detectives, lawyers, wizards... Doesn't matter. At some point in the story, the characters are so real, and you have such empathy for them, you are moved enough by some tragedy or triumph to cry. Watery eyes means good. If you actually make sound, like taking in a heavy breath, that's really good. If you are happy that no one else is in the room at he time so you don't have to explain what the he'll is wrong with you... That's a great book.


Good description!

For me, it's really about the characters, or at least the main character(s). I have to care about them, or I won't care what happens to them, and the book won't have any meaning for me. If I love the characters, I'll keep with a book or series, even if it has slow parts. If I don't care about the characters, there's no reason to stick with it, no matter how exciting the action.

My favorite books have often been from authors who say that they have no control over their characters - they often do things they weren't expecting, and they just have to work the book around that. Those seem to be the most "real" for me. (Diana Gabaldon's Outlander series is a perfect example. I'll keep reading any/all of those, because Jamie and Claire are so "real" to me, and I care what happens to them.)


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Odd phrasing. If you want to make sure I give up after the first page, phrase things really oddly, so I have to use maximal effort just to understand what you are saying. Making it unclear who is speaking when is another thing.


----------



## bnapier (Apr 26, 2010)

Personally, it takes a LOT for me to call a book "bad."  I tend to always give a book the benefit of the the doubt.  But a BAD book, I believe, stems from poorly built characters and plain, boring situations.

A GOOD book in my opinion, makes you feel like you're somehow different from  having read it; you can't stop thinking about it and it makes you reevaluate your ability as a writer.


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

As noted in the title:  it's opinion.  There are books that have lost me, where I just couldn't go on.  DaVinci Code was one, but I give Dan Brown all the credit for the great opening and writing it.  I don't like it when people call a book 'crap' or denigrate it.  If someone can point to something specific, that helps.  For example, my problem with Code was lack of a climactic scene.  Nothing changed at end of book from beginning.  As a writer, I tend to focus on the craft.  I love it when I find something that surprises me.
An interesting note-- The Passage by Justin Cronin.  Was a slow started, but once you get into it, it's great.  But then the split in the middle makes you almost scream, until you can get back into all the new characters.  An interestingly written book.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

JRTomlin said:


> I'm a sucker for sad or at least bitter-sweet endings.
> 
> But you had better give me characters I care about or I'm gone.
> 
> I have no problem with prologues as long as something happens in it and it has a reason to be there.


I dislike endings that are too neat. It doesn't have to be sad but I want to leave a book feeling there is more to the story. With most HEA stories I always think "those two better die tomorrow, otherwise they're in for a rude awakening."

Yes, if I don't care about the characters, why would I want to spend 10-15 hours with them?

As for Prologues, to me they set the stage. They are like a delicious appetizer before a wonderful meal -- assuming they are well done, of course.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

A great book is one I either want to tell other people about, because my excitement over it feels like it might burst me apart, or one that I can't let go. Some books you only know are great after you close the last page or a couple days later -- at the time of reading they're working on a deeper level than you realize.


----------



## AnneKAlbert (Dec 7, 2010)

I, too, read the first page as a test. If it flows, grabs my attention, and "feels" like a good match for my checklist of likes and dislikes, I continue. 

Sometimes it bothers me that it comes down to this almost instant (and usually permanent) evaluation regardless of the author's writing style and skill level, but it does. I feel like the teacher who dislikes one or two of her students for no apparent reason. It's just plain wrong on so many levels, yet it IS my reality!


----------

