What makes us like some books and hate others?
I've just finished reading
The icon by Neil Olson. In some ways the genre is similar to The da Vinci code, which got such a lot of hype last year, the genre being the ancient artefact with mystery attached one.
But I think this is a much better book than The da Vinci code, though I doubt that it will make as much money.
It's better written, for a start. The characters are more believable. The dialogue is better. And the story is better.
And then I start thinking, why do I think this?
When I said I thought The da Vinci code was a bad book, many people said that that must be because if the main thesis of the book was true, it would show how deluded I was and that I had wasted my life.
So maybe I just liked The icon because its theological presuppositions were more congenial to me, and it has nothing to do with it's merits or otherwise as a book.
Perhaps there is something in that.
We like reading things where the worldview -- the basic presuppositions about life, the universe and everything -- is congenial. That's no doubt got something to do with why I like books by the Inklings -- C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, J.R.R. Tolkien. And fantasy books by non-Christian authors don't appeal so much.
But I don't think that can be all there is to it.
I like books by the Inklings not just because the authors are Christian, but because I think they are good books. Christians can also write very bad fantasy literature. Frank Peretti's books make me cringe. And there's a Christian author called Stephen Lawhead who writes almost unbelievable drek.
Arthur C. Clarke's worldview seems to be based on Buddhism as much as anything, but I've read his Childhood's end several times, and enjoyed it.
So it's not just a congenial worldview that makes one enjoy a book. There's got to be more to it than that. So what is it about The icon that makes it so much better than The da Vinci code? The characters and the plot are better, yes. It's less contrived and formulaic. The story is not interrupted by long monologues in which one of the characters preaches a sermon or gives a (bad) history lesson.
If it were just for the characters, why do I keep re-reading the Harry Potter books? In those the characters are so formulaic as to be caricatures, particularly the bad guys, Vernon and Dudley Dursley, Draco Malfoy and his father.
So what is it about The icon that makes it so much better than The da Vinci code? It's hard to put a finger on it. It's not great literature, by any means, just a somewhat better example of the genre than one that's got a lot of hype lately.
So I wonder what other people who've read it think.
The icon by Neil Olson. In some ways the genre is similar to The da Vinci code, which got such a lot of hype last year, the genre being the ancient artefact with mystery attached one.
But I think this is a much better book than The da Vinci code, though I doubt that it will make as much money.
It's better written, for a start. The characters are more believable. The dialogue is better. And the story is better.
And then I start thinking, why do I think this?
When I said I thought The da Vinci code was a bad book, many people said that that must be because if the main thesis of the book was true, it would show how deluded I was and that I had wasted my life.
So maybe I just liked The icon because its theological presuppositions were more congenial to me, and it has nothing to do with it's merits or otherwise as a book.
Perhaps there is something in that.
We like reading things where the worldview -- the basic presuppositions about life, the universe and everything -- is congenial. That's no doubt got something to do with why I like books by the Inklings -- C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, J.R.R. Tolkien. And fantasy books by non-Christian authors don't appeal so much.
But I don't think that can be all there is to it.
I like books by the Inklings not just because the authors are Christian, but because I think they are good books. Christians can also write very bad fantasy literature. Frank Peretti's books make me cringe. And there's a Christian author called Stephen Lawhead who writes almost unbelievable drek.
Arthur C. Clarke's worldview seems to be based on Buddhism as much as anything, but I've read his Childhood's end several times, and enjoyed it.
So it's not just a congenial worldview that makes one enjoy a book. There's got to be more to it than that. So what is it about The icon that makes it so much better than The da Vinci code? The characters and the plot are better, yes. It's less contrived and formulaic. The story is not interrupted by long monologues in which one of the characters preaches a sermon or gives a (bad) history lesson.
If it were just for the characters, why do I keep re-reading the Harry Potter books? In those the characters are so formulaic as to be caricatures, particularly the bad guys, Vernon and Dudley Dursley, Draco Malfoy and his father.
So what is it about The icon that makes it so much better than The da Vinci code? It's hard to put a finger on it. It's not great literature, by any means, just a somewhat better example of the genre than one that's got a lot of hype lately.
So I wonder what other people who've read it think.