What constitutes a good read?

[z10]

There are, to a certain degree, some de facto elements such as a competent style, an original story and an attempt at entertainment throughout.

 

However, what really makes you sit up and think 'this was a good read' after a book?

 

for me, a good read is one that totally captures my attention both during and after the book for a considerable time. I must still be imitating the characters that i have fallen in love with in the book atleast a fortnight after i've finished it to consider it a good read.

[Nox]

For one, the book has to be either fantasy/sci-fi or pre-gunpowder era.

I don't like books that happen in the "now", I live in the now, why would I want to read it?

I like books that are out for entertainment not life philosophy or any other kind, I don't need others to tell me what or how to think.

Pre-gunpowder because I believe the heroes died the day gunpowder was created.

The book must be diverse, as in many elements such as a love plot, a save the world plot etc. , it must have character debt and flawed characters, engaging story, doesn't have to be original, well written as in good amount of every element...

Must have a substantial amount of good humor.

Vivid worlds and a lot of travel, they can't just be sticking in one place.

The story must not focus on a single character and ignore the others, read the Mediator and you'll know what I mean by single character focus.

 

 

I could go on and on, I have very specific tastes...

[z10]

well, that's the purpose of this thread, to see what tastes we have here

 

i find your 'pre-gunpowder' comment interesting, and although it's a bit of a tangent

i'd like to know why you think gunpowder killed off heroes

[Nox]

i find your 'pre-gunpowder' comment interesting, and although it's a bit of a tangent

i'd like to know why you think gunpowder killed off heroes

 

You can dodge an arrow, you need skill to wield a sword.

When guns ware created all that became obsolete, now anyone can point a gun and shoot, and if someone tries to be the hero they'll be the one on the receiving end.

It used to take effort to be evil and to be good, but people have forgotten all the rules of engagement, now whenever I enter a fight someone pulls a gun on me and becomes the "big tough guy", no skill, no knowledge, no experience, no honor.

 

Sorry if that's vague, it's 3 in the morning and I am quite tired, I could make more sense some other time.

[z10]

no, it makes sense, there's no need to revise it

i always find that to me a hero can be anyone that excels against the odds in a given situation, the overbearing conditions of the situation are not as important as the choice of the 'hero'

but then, we are all welcome to our own tastes of course

[Nox]

no, it makes sense, there's no need to revise it

i always find that to me a hero can be anyone that excels against the odds in a given situation, the overbearing conditions of the situation are not as important as the choice of the 'hero'

but then, we are all welcome to our own tastes of course

 

I understand what you mean, but choices affect many people and they don't affect everyone equally, so what to you may be a bad choice, to others it would be the "right thing to do".

So who decides who the hero is?

[z10]

i do ofcourse

the book is there for my entertainment and i take whichever character i like as the hero

[Nox]

I was talking more about the overall sense, but touche.

To me a hero has always been someone who proves himself/herself in combat.

Basically as the old saying goes, the definition of a hero is someone who gets others killed.

[Kylie]

A good read for me is something that stays with me afterwards, whether it's the plot or the characters or just everything.

 

A well-written book will also get good marks from me. I love something that is written poetically and makes great use of the English language - something that makes me think 'how the heck do they come up with these sentences?' and also makes me a little sad as I realise I can never aspire to such greatness.

[Guest]

No head-jumping, overuse of dialogue tags or exclamation marks, no coincidences or deus ex machina plot resolutions, minimal telling-not-showing, lack of predictability but with the feeling of 'this is the only way the story could have worked out', culminating in the thought "I wish I'd written that."

[~V~]

No head-jumping, overuse of dialogue tags or exclamation marks, no coincidences or deus ex machina plot resolutions, minimal telling-not-showing, lack of predictability but with the feeling of 'this is the only way the story could have worked out', culminating in the thought "I wish I'd written that."

 

Could we have that in the style of 'Writing for Dummies' please?

[wiccibat]

The book has to draw me into the story, the outside world will fade out and if people try interrupting, I will not be listening.

Whatever the size of the book, when I get to the end I'll be left with a sense of "is that it? I want more." prolific writer's do well out of me, I'm so excited when the next book comes out.

[Kell]

If I get completely involved with the characters and disappear into the plot, then that's an excellent book. I often prefer books where the "bad guy" gets away with it or is shown as the hero or anti-hero. For example, The Talented Mr Ripley - the "hero" of the story is, essentially, a murderer, but the reader identifies with him and, because the so-called "good guys" are pretty obnoxious and spoiled, we side with him over them. It's an unusual feeling to be cheering the guy that's doing the killing, but I like the unusual in books.

[The Library Nook]

The book has to draw me into the story, the outside world will fade out and if people try interrupting, I will not be listening.

Whatever the size of the book, when I get to the end I'll be left with a sense of "is that it? I want more." prolific writer's do well out of me, I'm so excited when the next book comes out.

 

 

Agree with all of that. I know I have read a good book when my real life ceases to exist and I cannot put the book down:smile2:

Sadly hasn't happened in a while.

[Slim Jenkins]

The book must not contain characters who sound like they could have been in a Punk band. Or be too 'literary' in the sense that it just shows off the writer's private education. Or be about middle-aged men and their record collection/children/failed marriage. Or involve intergalactic empires and comprise of so many words that, laid end-to-end, they'd reach the moon. No wizards, please.

 

A good read for me has stylish prose, be that hardboiled minimalism or something else....perhaps like Greene it makes 'political' points without lecturing...or like Burroughs it plays with words and their meaning to challenge notions of conformist literature and society.

[Guest]

Could we have that in the style of 'Writing for Dummies' please?

 

*sigh*

 

Only for you, dear.

 

Head-jumping - when the author's telling the story from one character's point of view and then suddenly from another's. For instance:

 

I wish I was just like ~V~, prospero thought. But ~V~ knew that could never happen, because she was just too cool.

 

In the first sentence we're relating my thoughts, and in the second, your supposed feelings on the matter. The reader's left in some confusion as to whom the last 'she' refers. Which is it? In my head or yours? Make up your mind, author, please!

 

Dialogue tags - "Open up!" she said. - "Why?" John asked. - "I want to come in," Sarah complained. - "I cannot let you do that," John asserted. - "But I must!" she insisted.

 

You get the point, don't you? It's terribly annoying to read all those dialogue tags! They lose their power! A bit like exclamation marks when they're all over the place! They should be used sparingly!

 

Coincidences - 'nuff said. It's all very well saying, "This happened in real life!" Well no-one wants to read about your life. We want to read a story which gives the impression of reality. (It's similar to dialogue in a way. It shouldn't be true to life. It should give the impression of real speech). Coincidences take the plot resolution out of the hands of the characters and turn them into passive ciphers who could be anyone. Character development isn't called for if events happen to the characters, rather than being caused by them.

 

Deus ex machina - here's a definition for those who aren't familiar.

 

Telling-not-showing - "Mary was sad." Well so damn what? Show me she was sad. (I complained about this in reaction to Cecelia Ahern's PS I Love You). Describe the tears, the despair, the sleepless nights. Don't tell me how someone feels, show me their actions and let me draw my own conclusions. I'm not stupid; don't give me on-the-nose description that treats me as if I am.

 

***

The lack of predictability but with the concluding feeling of "That's the only way the story could have turned out," is exemplified in Agatha Christie's novels, I feel, although it would apply to any genre. Keep the characters acting in character, but don't signal their every move with clunky foreshadowing. You know the sort. "Little did she know her world would change beyond all description." Well if she doesn't know her world is about to change, how can you tell me, from her point of view, that it will?

 

Aaaaand relax.

[~V~]

Thank you Prospero, that makes a lot of sense to a non-writer. Two questions:

 

1. Could you give an example of the Deus ex machina in current literature please?

 

2. Does this mean Agatha Christie's good? (I know she is, but am curious as to your feelings whilst using this 'evidence')

[Guest]

Thank you Prospero, that makes a lot of sense to a non-writer. Two questions:

 

1. Could you give an example of the Deus ex machina in current literature please?

 

2. Does this mean Agatha Christie's good? (I know she is, but am curious as to your feelings whilst using this 'evidence')

 

1. DEM...hmm, Captain Corelli's Mandolin? The earthquake would be a good example of that. I can't quite remember if it's at the end of the book or halfway through, though. I know that earthquake happened in real life but using it in a book is a tad 'convenient', isn't it? Saves the author having to think of ways his characters could move the story along.

 

Also, Vintage which I'm reading now, ends with an earthquake. I know, I know...I looked ahead.

 

DEM tends to happen more in movies; wasn't there one at the end of The Postie Always Knocks on Your Door Thrice, or whatever it was called?

 

Anything where an accident happens and the bad guy is conveniently bumped off, or an 'Act of God' leaves the way clear for a happy ever after.

 

2. Is Agatha Christie good? Well, in my opinion...yes. She laid red herrings and 'proper' clues in the body of the story in such a way that they don't stand out; all very subtly done. I can't remember who it was said she could sketch a character in a few lines and in my opinion she's one of the best for ingenious stories.

 

Oh, and I LOVED her unreliable narrator. I won't mention the title here because I might give it away but first person unreliable is immensely difficult to pull off and she did it admirably.

 

(Sorry I'm going off on my writer's kick again...)

[~V~]

Oh, and I LOVED her unreliable narrator. I won't mention the title here because I might give it away but first person unreliable is immensely difficult to pull off and she did it admirably.

 

(Sorry I'm going off on my writer's kick again...)

 

I'm a huge fan of hers as you probably know and know exactly which book you mean. There was a massive furore at first I think because of ... well, you know

[Guest]

I made the mistake of reading that wiki link and one of the books mentioned is on Mount TBR so...I'll have to wait and see exactly what wikipedia meant by calling this particular narrator 'unreliable'.

 

Just be warned, people. You might not want to click that link; it contains spoilers.

[Michelle]

If I recall correctly, didn't The Secret Dreamworld of a Shopaholic have a rather unbelievable twist near the end..

suddenly all her money woes were over, because she got 'spotted' and ended up on some tv show?

I remember being so annoyed, that I haven't read any of her others!

[Guest]

My complaint exactly, Michelle. DEM and/or coincidence means the characters don't have to do anything, they just pootle along letting life happen to them.

 

I've read all the books in that series and sad to say, they are rather formulaic.

[Michelle]

Glad to hear I'm not missing much then!

[Guest]

Oh, I could kick myself. One of my "Don't mention this book or prospero's head will explode," novels is the perfect example of deus ex machina. My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult. At least it's good for something - using as an example here! The American amazon site is a lot more vitriolic about it than the UK one. We so polite over here.

[Michelle]

But you already know that whilst many agree with, many disagree - so it does work well for some. I, for one, liked the book.. including the ending, so we will have to agree to disagree, as they say.