What makes a good novel?
Do you know what makes a good novel? Sometimes I wonder if I do. This could be a serious problem, since I write them, but I think it’s harder to pin down than most people realise.
If you asked everyone this question, most of us would answer differently. With some people the differences would be extreme. Some would definitely mention technique, some might suggest that technique is old hat and emotion is all that’s required.
While technique can pin it down for some people, what actually makes a novel a good one can be a nebulous thing. Certainly, not using any technique can make it difficult for anyone to engage in the story, but by the same token, sometimes it’s editors like me and other publishers who spend their time complaining about an author’s lack of technique and the absence of things like point of view, for example, when the average reader wouldn’t even notice it.
I think emotion does play a big part, because emotion is usually what tugs at us when it comes to fiction. So I think that emotion and technique are equally important. Both should be present in a good novel.
But who says I’m right? What do you think makes a good novel?
newest »
I think it's so subjective. One person thinks Harry Potter is amazing and another doesn't understand the hype. Moby Dick is considered a classic and is on reading lists in high schools all over the place...I think it's one of the most boring books on the planet and to this day I couldn't tell you a THING about it, though I had to read it for an English class. I think what makes a good book, as you say, varies from person to person. I want a book that touches me in some way. I want to relate to a character, or an event in the book. I want to feel connected to the characters and be emotionally invested enough to care about what happens to them. But, I also want it to be well written. I notice things like plot inconsistencies. I generally notice typos because I tend to read slowly and absorb each word. I recently read a book that said these twins did not have what other twins reported: knowing when their twin was in danger or feeling it when they were hurt. And then later it contradicts that, saying the one twin had always been able to tell when her twin was in trouble and had woken up gasping for breath when her twin was drowning. Many people might not catch that, as the first comment was made in passing and not really important to the story line, but I DO notice things like that, and it detracts from the story. I need a well thought out book that captures my attention and that I can relate to in some way. That's a good book to me. But to someone else, it might be that they learn something from it. (which I will admit, I also love, but it's not a requirement) And to someone else, it might be that it's popular.
