What Makes a Bad Book Good?

[sartorias]

I saw a discussion posted on this topic, but by the time I'd discovered it, it had already been taken over by some folks who wanted to brangle about whether or not Harry Potter was "bad" or "good"--each implying their own taste was the standard all should use

Comments

[scribblerworks]

I don't think "wish fulfillment" fiction is necessarily bad. James Bond may be a wish fulfillment figure, but his adventures do make for a good romp, a vacation or escape from more pragmatic matters of life. As I recall (it's been a while since I actually read one of the books), the prose is direct, unvarnished and unpretentious, which gives them a certain durability.

I had to think over the sorts of things I actually re-read, with this light shone upon them. I love re-reading Georgette Heyer's books. But I think there's wish fulfillment in most of them as well: spirited heroines, or at least witty ones, dashing gentlemen, passionate love cribbed in by social mores and the drama that comes from that. But it occured to me that the story of hers that I re-read the least is A Civil Contract, which is in a way, an anti-wish-fulfillment romance. The obvious "passionate attachment" pair do NOT get to marry each other: the girl marries an older, very wealthy man who is something of a rake, and although he doesn't out and out abuse her, it's

[sartorias]

No, I agree about wish fulfillment. Sometimes that's just exactly what a reader wants. Yet wish fulfillment stories can fall on either side of that "bad" line--as drawn by different readers.

A Civil Contract is problematical to me because it exchanges the wish-fulfillment for melodrama. I would have respect that book a whole lot more if the central story hadn't had the plain heroine secretly in love with the hero all along, and her best friend his love. Blech. Heyer was very strong at some things, but writing outside of stereotypes wasn't one, imo. She just had the skill to make her stereotypes entertaining.

[scribblerworks]

A good point.

It makes me reflect on what I'm planning to do in writing Godiva. Because, in that, what comes after The Ride intrigued me. Historically, years after the supposed date of the Ride, Godiva & Leofric founded the monestary in Coventry that became the linchpin of the area's economy. How, I wondered, did they get from whatever the situation was around the Ride to such an obvious working partnership? But wish-fulfilling stereotypes had to be chucked out for that.

But you raise the question then: how much is wish-fulfillment fiction (good or bad) dependant on stereotypes? And will shifting stereotypes render works dependant on a trope left behind as unreadable? Your original citation of the Graustark tales would indicate so.

Perhaps we (the general reading audience) just have to wait for patterns to change to find out what gets left standing -- and those are the "good" books. ;-)

[sartorias]

I do think it can be harder to identify evolving stereotypes in one's own time, at least when one is young.

But yeah.

[rysmiel]

Well, for me, what makes a bad book something I will read anyway is very simple, I am a plot complexity addict. I have read some really awful series just to see how certain tangles would resolve.

I think you are right about the reinforcement of rules, and those being rules that the reader derives comfort from; whether it be readers who derive comfort from romances in which Twue Wuv triumphs over all else, or the particularly politically obnoxious books in which everyone without exception is selfish and unscrupulous and therefore the protagonists are supposedly justified in holding selfish and unscrupulous views of their own. I like to think that I am unfond of any text that advances a particular narrow range of human nature as a universal of human nature, and I certainly get cross with books which present interesting aliens (for whatever value of "not like us" is appropriately alien to the genre) but have as an underlying message that they are just like us really, particularly for values of "just like us" that read as excluding my

[asakiyume]

The notion that X, Y, or Z is just like us really can be pretty chilling for its narcissism. I suppose on a very deep level, just like us really people maybe intend it to mean inherently valuable, worthy of respect, care, and love... but when you get away from that most basic level and become any more specific, then no. Not everyone is just like us, and that's the reality we need to deal with.

[rysmiel]

I agree with you on "just like us" being shuddersomely narcissistic, but I think I am thinking of something slightly different, or on a slightly different level

[asakiyume]

Oh yes, I see what you're getting at. I find that depressing too--why couldn't the mercenary want something different. Or why can't the protagonist he's put with end up modifying his or her own outlook to be more like the mercenary's? After all, in real life influence works both ways.

Speaking of phobic reactions to human kids, have you ever seen the Mitchell and Webb skit "Fear of Children"? It's on Youtube here if you feel in the mood for a laugh!

[wldhrsjen3]

Great post

[sartorias]

I think the state of a culture / society at the time a book enjoys its popularity can sometimes be an identifying factor in *why* that particular book did so well, and I think it explains why some books become classics while others languish - once a popular "bad" book has satisfied the cravings of its readership at that time, it is unlikely to continue being fulfilling.

I thoroughly agree--this is exactly why I read old favorites that have fallen out of popularity, or even notice.

[19_99]

I think that some of the books I like are "bad". I think books need at least a somewhat original plot idea, good and consistent characters and a lack of language abuse (artistic licence with grammar is fine as long as it's both intentional and it actually adds something) for it to be good even if it isn't my taste.

For me, the biggest test is if I can reread it and still take it seriously. I enjoyed the two Dan Brown novels I read the first time because I was so drawn in by the mystery/suspense (yes, I realise they're formulaic, but I still found them suspenseful) that I didn't notice the writing. I couldn't reread those books. Does that make it bad? I can certainly see where people can justify calling them that. Same goes with Twilight though I found the flaws fairly obvious the first time around. I sometimes compare it to liking dessert: just because you know it's bad for you doesn't mean you're not allowed to like it. Not the perfect analogy, but it functions

[sartorias]

Amen to that. Definitions of bad vary so much. Dan Brown's first book was "bad" to my spouse because of all the historical errors. The spouse couldn't buy the story because structure didn't withstand his own knowledge base. But he didn't object when students used the book for an assignment on religion in fiction--the book worked for them.

[scribblerworks]

I think the worst thing about these books are the fans who attack people who call them bad. Especially when the attacks consist of things like "Well, I wouldn't expect you to understand." and so on where the support is really just insulting the reader who found flaws.

Ouch. I quite agree. And I admit to being rather (or perhaps overly) sensitive to the Adamant Fan's dismissal of any critique I make of their darling: "Well, that's just your opinion" as if I have no objective grounds for my criticism. After laboring my way through a Bachelor's and a Master's degree in English, I have learned at least a few things about what can objectively qualify something as "good" writing.

I once told a friend that I found her favorite science fiction author to be a "good journeyman writer" and she got highly offended. I acknowledged that she enjoyed his works, I said that he was a competent storyteller, he just wasn't great. She got really, really huffy, and spit out the "Well, that's just your opinion!" thing. Just because I did not praise him

[rachelmanija]

The elements that make a bad book good reading for me are less likely to be wish-fullfillment (though that can definitely be a factor) as a sort of mad enthusiasm and the willingness to throw in anything and the kitchen sink.

For instance, ha'penny dreadfuls do have wish-fulfillment elements, but what makes them such delightful reading to me is not that the hero is competent -- most heroes are competent -- as that in a single sixty-page book, he might recieve a message from a dying man, interpret it as a form of south American knotted-string code, spy on a ritual sacrifice, be lost in Parisian sewers and attacked by rats of unusual size, ally with a dancing girl who can throw a deadly knife, be staked out to be eaten by army ants specially imported for that purpose, ride a giant octopus, discover that unbeknownst to himself he is actually his own twin brother, and make it back to London in time to file the story.

[sartorias]

Oh, see, I perceive a difference between bad (i.e. predictable) and crack. Crack is high octane drama, a la the plots of opera, which crazy emotional content is shot skyward by the beauty of the music. Or anime that is so nifty to look at, you just ride along with all the emotional explosives.

[rachelmanija]

There's vast differences in artistic quality even with crack, though. Some cracktastic stories may have a plot that makes no sense but be artistically good in other ways. Others (like the Sexton Blake stories I described) are basically terrible, especially on a prose level, but are still tremendously entertaining.

I don't mind predictability if the journey and destination are satisfying. Predictability is completely built into some genres anyway: if the hero and heroine don't end up together at the end of the romance, the story is completely unsatisfying as a romance, even if it's good in other ways.

[sartorias]

Oh, I totally agree. I love a satisfying read, including the horrible old Keith Laumer Retief stories, chock-full of slams at Democrats and socialism etc as they are. But I was trying to step outside of the whole why are bad books popular thing. I don't know if I succeeded, but hey, any discussion of books is worthwhile. (BTW I am waiting for daughter to waken to try printing stuff. She can get P's machine to work, I can't.)