I assume this thread is for discussing fiction books, probably novel-length, so here's what I think makes a good novel. Obviously what makes a good work of non-fiction is a bit different. I think these are the four main qualities that make a good novel, in what I would say is descending order of importance (although they're all important, and if it's missing one of them it's almost certainly not a good novel).
- A good novel has something meaningful to say about ourselves, the world we live in, and the people we live with. It communicates and illustrates this message effectively, raising questions about it and prompting some thought on the part of the reader.
- A good novel is technically well-written, with a style that complements and further expresses the message the author wants to put across, and is enjoyable to read.
- A good novel has interesting, complex characters who are carefully imagined and depicted with realistic personalities and psychology.
- A good novel is of an appropriate length, long enough to say everything the author wants to say but not unnecessarily long, and well paced within this.
A good book is one which makes me feel better after having read it.
I know that's horribly vague, but it's true. The truth is, I am not horribly picky about my literature, and will read just about anything that looks the slightest bit interesting. If, when I am done with the book, I feel like it left me with a real sense of completion and power, I consider it "good." And there's a lot of features which can contribute to this, and not all books need to have them in my eyes. I tend to prefer stronger characters over stronger plot, but some plot-centric books have won me over. I also tend to favor more descriptive prose over blander prose, but I know a few notorious beigers whom I still hold in high regard.
If I had to distill it down to one thing, though, I'd say I'd evaluate a book's "goodness" on its ability to make me feel. The more it toys with more emotions, the more invested I get in the stakes, the more I care about the characters, then the more real and captivating the story seems to me, and the more power it has over me. To me, the best thing a book can do for me is to sweep me up inside it and make me care about it as if it were real.
"Proto-Indo-European makes the damnedest words related. It's great. It's the Kevin Bacon of etymology." ~Madrugada@Freeziar For A Limited Time: I'd say that's my idea of a good book too. What's everyone else's opinions?
The road goes ever on. -TolkienUnlike Freezair For A Limited Time, I am picky about what I read. I want my books to have a quick paced plot or otherwise be able to pull me in. I want the words to flow, maybe with some poetry, and I want to feel in the moment. I don't want to feel stuck inside the character's head. Once I'm pulled in a want to meet some memorable characters. I want to know what they're like and go on adventures with them. All in all, a good book needs to be entertaining.
The Remarkable Journey Of Prince Jen. The King's Shadow. The Westing Game. Watership Down. Redwall. Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, Ninth Edition. Alcatraz Versus The Evil Librarians. Treasure Island. Chronicles of Narnia and Lord Of The Rings. Count Bohemond (and other stuff by Alfred Duggan). The House At Pooh Corner. Bride Of The Rat God.
Or, if you want an alternate idea of a good book, take Sonichu/ My Immortal/ A Song Of Ice And Fire/ Fifty Shades Of Gray/ Twilight and find the opposite of that.
edited 3rd May '13 10:02:08 AM by ATC
If you want any of my avatars, just Pm me I'd truly appreciate any avatar of a reptile sleeping in a Nice Hat Read Elmer Kelton booksA book should have a clear idea of what the reader is supposed to enjoy about it.
Art can engage people in many different ways. Some fiction is good because it contains new, interesting ideas. Sometimes it's good because it's funny. Some fiction is mostly about wish fulfillment. Really good books usually combine multiple forms of engagement.
The important thing is that the work knows what it's trying to accomplish and does so. A book that just combines half-developed themes, characters, and ideas that the author found laying around because they were good in other books he read is unlikely to succeed.
As the K-Man put it: "Ein Buch muß die Axt sein für das gefrorene Meer in uns" (a book must be the axe for the frozen sea within us). So many books are a form of anaesthesia—we read them to DULL our emotional nerve-endings. That won't do. A good book leaves you more human than you started.
edited 28th May '13 11:35:15 AM by Jhimmibhob
"A good book tells you something about its subject. A bad book tells you something about its author." - GK Chesterton
ERROR: The current state of the world is unacceptable. Save anyway? YES/NO
The spectator is part of life, and indeed, the chief means by which the spectator experiences it. So with all respect to Mr. Wilde, I don't really see the contradiction. :)
There are no good and bad books. For every book written, there is someone out there who is going to read it and like it.
The idea of a good book to me, is it has to catch me in the first 10 pages or so. Otherwise I won't be interested in it.
Anyone willing to write a book and put it out there though. Deserves some amount of respect because they made it that far to even finish one. If it is successful or not I guess really depends on the public at large at that point. Even Twilight made it big, so...who's to say what good really is.
One that grabs me by the short and curlies, doesn't let go until I have finished it and doesn't make me want to take a shower after finishing it and swear never to read the thing again for as long as I draw breath.
So I hate, for example, Pet Sematary, and love the 1632-verse books and the Belisarius Series, both coincidentally helmed by Eric Flint.
I'm a follower of Multiverse theory. If a book's going to grab me, it needs to create a world I could look at and say, "I want to fucking find that world."
Characters and world building are important. If those two are good, I could forego a high intensity story for the sake of just exploring the world at large.
I'm a builder of my own mental fantasy land. I don't need highly impacting stories as long as there's enough going on to show what those characters can do.
A good book has characters you can relate to. Whether it's a protagonist who's not perfect, or an antagonist who is actually human, I want the people (or non human characters) in the story to feel real. I want to be able to believe their problems, along with the ways they think of solving them.
A good book has an interesting beginning that catches my attention almost immediately, along with an ending that wraps up the events pretty well.
"The three rules of the librarians of time and space: silence; books must be returned on time; no interfering with the nature of causality."For me, it ultimately comes down to caring about the characters rather than relating to them (though of course those two are linked). That goes for all fiction, not just literature. If I find myself thinking about what happened to the characters two weeks after finishing it, then I count it as a good book.
There are plenty of books that I enjoyed reading, that were fun books, but that I wouldn't consider to be good books.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

I've heard on the Writer's Block forum and everywhere else that good writing (in terms of story etc) is subjective. What I think is good might not be what someone else thinks is good. So what are everyone's opinions on what makes a good book?
The road goes ever on. -Tolkien