I and my friend group have a book club of sorts. We try to have a diverse selection of books, but every so often, we run into the problem of differentiating between saying that a book “is not for me” and “this book is bad”. We have debated on this topic as each of us have a different understanding of how to verbalize our thoughts in a way that correctly conveys what we think about a book that didn’t work for us. Not liking a story doesn’t make it bad, because sometimes it genuinely can be about not clicking with the writing, the characters, themes, etc. But then there are books that are frankly just bad – badly written, poor characters, poorly constructed plot line, etc. But when you have negative sentiments about a novel you have just read, it can be difficult to differentiate between the two. So, my question is, how do you personally differentiate between the two? How do you decide whether a book is simply not for you, or that it is just bad?
by korengo
6 Comments
Basically what you said. If I think more than once that the book needed editing, that’s a book I’ll judge as bad more often than not
I think, if a book club is throwing around “good” or “bad”, then it doesn’t sound like a very interesting book club.
Surely the point of book clubs is to have expansive, interesting discussions around people’s thoughts about different aspects of the book – themes, characters, prose, dialogue, plot, pacing, setting and a hundred other things that are are interesting to talk about out. Whether someone declares a book to be “good” or “bad” is the _least_ interesting thing they have to say about a book.
The funny thing is is that even with badly written books, some people will find them good for a plethora of reasons. So I consider a book bad if it doesn’t suit my tastes. That doesn’t make it bad, but just bad to me. Some books you can just see the potential or why someone may like it despite not liking it yourself so it’s just stuff to factor in.
It’s a spectrum. Let’s say I don’t like Moby Dick. I can’t say it’s bad. Let’s say I like Twilight. Maybe I think it’s bad *and* I like it.
Good and bad aren’t useful words. What is “good” food? Some people think a Whopper is great. Some people hate sushi. Some people hate steak.
Instead of “bad” just make it about what, within the book, is well executed, and what is poorly done.
Clunky writing and/or awkward phrasing/sentences usually does it.
Or content wise, anything bigoted or ignorant, or too unsubtle.
That’s not the only thing that can happen. There’s plenty of things I like that I would consider “bad”. There’s plenty of things that I don’t like that I would consider “good”.
What I like to do is discuss certain external standards.
First, do they apply to this book?
Let’s say proper orthography. Applies to almost all novels, except certain more experimental types. Now, a lot of typos and nonsensical punctuation would be a mark against the quality of the book, no?
Then you have a lot of standards that are a bit more murky. Internal consistency, logic, effective prose, artful prose, concreteness in prose, character development, or even vaguer ones like emotional impact, emotive language etc. etc. etc.
You apply them to the book you read and discuss how it measures up.
That’s the widely and wildly misunderstood “objective criticism”. It’s pretty much a platonic ideal, like objective journalism and the like. It doesn’t mean true or that everyone has to agree. Just means “conforming to an external standard”.
It’s the beginning of an interesting discussion.
“Everything is subjective” is, as you have probably seen, the end of it.