How
many times have you finished a book, closed it, and said, "That was a good
book."
Why
did you say that? In what way was the book "good?"
My
questions stem from a group discussion in a friend's living room this past
week. This is a monthly book club that has been in existence about 40 years.
I've only been a member about 25 of those years, and intermittent at best. This
particular discussion made me think and re-think my ideas about "a good
book."
The
novel was about the wife of a real person in American history. Since it's
fiction, we had a difficult time separating truth from fiction, and especially
since we didn't know the full truth of the man's life in the public eye.
More
than one member said, "I didn't like the book."
Why?
"It
was depressing and he really was a cruel person."
All
right. But what about the story and how it was written? The member maintained
her stance--"I didn't like the characters."
A
few others agreed, and a couple said he was horrible to treat his wife the way
he did.
I
thought it was a "good book" and I was not the only one.
The
story fascinated me, whether it was truthful or not. Even though it was
depressing, I still maintain it was a good book.
The
author is young, but she wrote a very good story. The book is published by one
of the big publishers, hardback, etc., great cover, and not so long that it
tired me to finish.
So,
what does make a book good? Here are a few ideas:
The
book is Good...
--If
it has a satisfying ending--not particularly happy.
--If
the hero is a good man and does the right thing in the end.
--If
I can't put it down.
--If
I learned something new.
--If
the story is compelling.
--If
I don't take anything personally.
--If
it has nothing offensive, or at least very little.
--If
there's an element of mystery that surprises me.
None
of these ideas stand alone. We might make several statements to support our
belief.
I've
read novels with titles such as: Cutting
for Stone; Germs, Guns, and Steel--the Downfall of Human Societies; Voices from
the Dust Bowl Years; and came away saying, these were good books.
I've
read romance novellas that were only 100 pages with titles such as The Cowboy and the Scarlet Woman, (I made that up, but you get the idea) and came away saying, this was
a good book.
On
the flip side, here's a list that makes me say, "This was not a good
book."
--Poor
passive writing--even if the plot might be good.
--Far
too much narrative, page after page after page, that does not allow me to use
my imagination. (I just finished one like this and wouldn't review it because
it was so bad.)
--No
emotion, flat dry drivel for conversations.
--Characters,
both male and female, who were TSTL.
--Stiff
dialogue with the characters doing nothing as real people might when they talk.
He said, she said.
--Written
in short choppy sentences.
--Written
in long sentences with multiple ideas in one.
What element of a book makes it good in your opinion. What in particular do you
look for? What just makes you grind your teeth in frustration?
Want
to know the title of the book?
The Aviator's Wife. The story of
Anne Morrow Lindberg.
By Melanie Benjamin
Thanks
for visiting.
Celia Yeary-Romance...and a
little bit 'o Texas
