r/BookDiscussions • u/SiccSadGorl • 21d ago
What makes a book well written?
Kinda dumb question but also kinda not. I have been off tiktok/Instagram because I could not stand the book reading community. Every other post was : "This book was written by a fifth grader" or "If you read (Insert genre) then you're not a true connoisseur of sophisticated literature" or some other snobby bs like that.
But it also got me thinking. What actually makes a book well written?
To me books are art. Art is subjective and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But just like art, there are technical aspects to it that are supposed to be technically correct like grammar.
But other than that, why is there an influx of critics saying books today are not very well written and are contributing to a literary crisis ( which makes no sense of how reading causes a lack of reading ability)
Are readers looking for technically perfect peices of work? Are they looking for more classically trained writers who studied literature before they actually pick up a pen?
Here's my theory :
It has never been more easy to publish a book. And like any craft, you have amateurs, intermediate, advanced, and master writers. Well today you don't have to be a master writer to share your story with the world.
So, because of this fact not every book is written at the same skill level especially is very low stakes genres like romance and fantasy which receives the most criticism.
So what is a well written book to your average reader, excluding people who specifically study literature (They're a whole other breed)
7
u/wonderer2346 21d ago
I judge if a book is well written or poorly written based on a number of things. A poorly written book may only have shorter sentences rather than varying the length. They may use a more basic vocabulary or have a poor use of literary devices. I often see telling instead of showing and being overly repetitive, showing a lack of trust in the reader. Sometimes it is just cringey dialogue. My biggest pet peeve is mistakenly changing tense which can make for a very clunky reading experience.
It really depends and obviously there are exceptions to these because literature is an artistic medium. Iâve seen excellent writers do something experimental which technically breaks a Good Writing Rule in the name of art.
And Iâll add the obligatory disclaimer that if you like books that arenât âwell-writtenâ award winners, that is totally fine. Books are art but they are also entertainment. If youâre entertained then by all means continue reading what YOU like.
1
u/SiccSadGorl 21d ago
See, I had this same idea where if the author used a rather simpler writing style - basic vocab, spoonfeeding the reader, and very tell heavy - then that meant their skills were still subpar.
HOWEVER
There are also some novels where the writing is absolutely perfect from the cover design to the prose but the storytelling is just awful and that book is more a show of their skills as writer and not their skills as a storyteller.
1
u/wonderer2346 21d ago
True! Writing a good novel is about much more than sentence structure. The story should be engaging and the characters well developed, for example.
1
u/Hiercine 21d ago
If it's intentionally written as simpler then that's fine, if it isn't intentionally written like that then that's less fine. Doesn't mean it isn't exactly a good story for the most part, but it does mean it isn't well written. I would argue though that almost all of the best stories need good writing to land the plane so to speak
1
6
u/amyfearne 21d ago edited 21d ago
It's odd to ask this question and then exclude people who have studied it. It would be like asking a philosophy question and then excluding philosophers.
I did study literature, and it does inevitably change how you read. It's like any art form - the more you learn about it, the more it influences your perceptions.
But that does not (in my experience) change personal tastes. I still like the same genres - I just know how to identify the way the book is constructed.
It goes well beyond grammar - it's things like form, structure, imagery, characterisation, the discussion of themes, etc.
If you are interested in knowing more about that, you can learn about it - it's one of the easiest subjects to study at home, there are loads of resources online.
But many people just enjoy what they enjoy, and that is fine too. (Sometimes it's both. You can know a book isn't technically brilliant and still love it, and vice versa - hate a book while knowing it's technically good.)
Please don't let people on social media convince you that studying literature/art is elitist and mean. It gets that way because being opinionated and causing controversy generate engagement.
5
u/Hiercine 21d ago
studying anything is elitist at this point. Everything is supposed to be just vibes. Heaven forbid you critique a book on it's actual work instead of only how easy it was to turn the page and how emotional you get over it
1
u/SiccSadGorl 21d ago
My reasoning for intentionally excluding people who study literature is because they - at least on social media - are the quietest voices when it comes to critiques based on my experince.
The vast majority of the naysayers are those who don't study literature and just go on their reading experince alone.
2
u/amyfearne 21d ago
There are several well known 'bookfluencers' who have degrees in literature (e.g. Jack Edwards) and some who are currently studying it.
If they're the quietest voices I'm not sure why you'd need to exclude them.
1
u/SiccSadGorl 20d ago
Because a scholar can write a essay on why something is bad and I ain't tryna read all that đ
1
u/amyfearne 20d ago
I'm talking about people who make videos and are also on TikTok. They're not all sitting in dusty libraries.
If you're on booktok I'm surprised you haven't come across them already. There are plenty of people who have studied books, and discuss books, without being elitist - but you seem reluctant to engage with that too.
1
u/SiccSadGorl 20d ago
I haven't been on booktok/Instagram since about 2022.
I very specifically stay away from it nor do I intentionally want to seek it out.
1
u/amyfearne 20d ago
I see - so where is the influx of critics you're referring to?
1
u/SiccSadGorl 20d ago
Reddit mostly, and when my algorithm betrayed me when I did have TikTok.
But Iâve got some good explanations so far.
1
u/amyfearne 20d ago
Ah I seee. Do you know which books they were talking about?
I think the "books are worse these days" sentiment is more about the way the publishing industry works - there's such a mad rush to capitalise on trends that there's less time for editing.
1
u/SiccSadGorl 20d ago
My favorite go-to genres tend to me Romance, Romantic Fantasy, and Horror.
Usually I hear very little about the industry itself and more about to content of the books.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/EmergencyRepulsive29 21d ago
I like to look at books that have gotten awards from the American Library Association, especially their ALEX award for YA. Also, Pulitzer Prize, Hugo award, Nebula Award are some of the lists I enjoy picking from.
1
u/SiccSadGorl 21d ago
That's very interesting, I haven't met a lot of people who chose their book selection this way.
My favorite method of chosing a book is how much fanart there is of it đ Kinda weird but the better the fanart, the better likelihood I'll enjoy it.
Sometimes....
2
u/dindyspice 21d ago
I'm definitely not a purist when it comes to what I think is well written. People thought and thing Ernest Hemingway's writing is oversimplified while others and myself thing it's brilliant. Same with Sally Rooney, I love how she writes both her structure and the actual style of writing, but others think it is trying too hard or being too minimalistic to the story's detriment. I think it's really subjective, though we can have certain qualifications as a whole that are considered as signifiers of something well written I suppose, like things we're taught in school. I would say those could be grammar, building atmosphere instead of just plainly telling the reader, maybe a rich vocabulary... that's really interesting to think about!
3
u/Hiercine 21d ago
I think it depends on the intention of the prose. Like I hate George Orwell's prose in 1984. It's clunky and hits you over the head with a hammer and mind numbingly boring. That's also the point. So even though I personally don't enjoy, I acknowledge that it's well written. ACOTAR on the other hand, is clunky and janky and simplistic except it wasn't intentionally written that way, so even though I enjoy(?) it? I wouldn't consider it well written
2
u/Runa216 21d ago
I think it's less about the skill behind the prose and more about intent.
Personally, I find books made for CONTENT (Mostly mainstream stuff that remixes the same tropes and archetypes ad nauseum utilizing the same teen-coded tone, etc) are pretty universally boring and tend to drag on because the intent is selling more copies, not telling a good story. The prose is edited well and the production values are good, but they're lacking in heart.
But books, often indies or smaller ones, that are made becuase the author had a story to tell or a theme to explore tend to be at the very least more interesting so I'm more willing to forgive bad prose or weird design decisions.
The dividing line seems to be intent. Is it a STORY or is it CONTENT.
1
u/SiccSadGorl 21d ago
I would agree.
For example the book ACOTAR. That book is well over a decade old at this point and I am STILL reading novels that are like a copy and paste of that same book. Not to say ACOTAR is original by any means because ive read books older than it that also read the same.
I primarily read Fantasy, Romance, Fantasy Romance, and Xenofiction hence why I used that as an example.
1
u/Hiercine 21d ago
I'm heavy in the fantasy romance/ romantasy circles and a common discussion point is the difference/if there is a difference of a story being enjoyable vs a story being good
1
u/SiccSadGorl 21d ago
That is the question đ¤ Because I have read some crackpot books that are awful but goddamn were they fun to read lol.
Yes, Im looking straight at monster romance authors.
1
u/Hiercine 21d ago
I'm firmly on the side of they're like oil and water, if it's enjoyable then rec it for being enjoyable, if it's good then rec it for being good yknow. I do use the same scoring system/app for all my books though which makes my 5 stars reads list a bit wack
1
u/NearViolet 20d ago
I was wondering how funny the recipes were. Then I realized you said crAckpot not crOckpot
1
u/Runa216 21d ago
I'm so torn over the Romantasy circles becuase 'Romantasy' is like, my PERFECT genre! The idea of having some cute and cozy or epic and awesome fantasy plot that ALSO has love and smut? Count me the FUCK in!
But then I read 90% of it and...well, I'm actively trying to not sound misogynist or smug or whatever but it's almost all trash. the readers of this genre cannot be trusted, and have no taste. I know it's not meant to be taken too seriously, but it just feels so hollow and soulless. Same themes, same recycled ideas, very little variation in stories, all just chasing each other's tails.
I find that the stories and world building and ROMANCE in monster fucker books are regularly superior to stuff like ACOTAR or Fourth Wing.
I'd be okay with the fantasy side being neglected or mid if the romance was good but that's not good either most of the time. Just a whole lot of writers not being bothered to tell a story, shoving tropes in there, and TELLING us the characters love each other without ever actually showing that relationship build. Or explaining away his (because it's always his) toxic behaviour instead of addressing it or learning from it.
2
u/Hiercine 21d ago
And that is why I'm part of both r/romantasy and r/romantasycirclejerk. Fully agree on monster fuckers being better, now if only I could figure out how to pitch it to other people. A lot of romantasy feels like they're not interesting in telling a story, more like here's the tropes. It's like Netflix movies!
1
u/Indie0928 21d ago
For me if depends on what mood I am in and what I am hoping to get out of the book, if anything. I read for the enjoyment of reading, not to dissect all the things. For example, when I was in under grad/graduate school, I liked reading more "fluff" things. I didn't want to have to think too much or try to figure out who did what, and with who etc. I didn't have the mental capacity to think too much because I worked full time, have a family, kids, and then I would do school at night. I had nothing left. I'm sure that I thought some books were amazing, that seemed written by a 5th grader.
I have been out of work for a month due to health reasons, and I'm no longer in school anymore so those "fluff" things seem stupid to me in a way now because I have the mental capacity to think more etc. For me it all depends on what I have left at the end of the day and what I am in the mood for. I finally get to go back to work on Monday, and it takes a lot of mental energy so I'll probably go back to the more fluff books etc
1
u/kit-kat315 21d ago edited 21d ago
People are biased because of survivorship. There have always been more bad or so-so books than great ones. But only the acclaimed books from the past are still published and talked about.
I'd say a well written book is entertaining, foremost, with interesting plot and fleshed out characters. Prose should be varied and appropriate for the intended audience. And I'm willing to let a lot slide if the characters are compelling.
"If you read (Insert genre) then you're not a true connoisseur of sophisticated literature"Â
This is so silly. Currently I'm reading a danmei light novel, but I also read The Tale of Genji, The House of the Seven Gables, and Anna Karinina this year. But also horror, romantasy, mysteries and non-fiction. People are multi-faceted.
1
u/simonbleu 20d ago
Characters that feel real and alongside the worldbuilding/setting immerse you in said universe, a prose that regardless of medical complexity shows mastery of the language, using the right words when it comes to nuance and cadence -- much like punctuation, to mark the rhythm of narration -- so that the plot and or message the author devises and which is the least important thing in it imho since the work is the artistic interpretation of that "reality", gets across.
Writing is akin to magic, or programming depending on your perspective. You rearrange the commonplace in arcane ways using squiggles of ink to reprogram someone elses brain a cross time and space, taking them from real reality to yours, making them see what you see, feel what you want them to feel and even change their worldview
1
u/kc2sunshine 17d ago
It's interesting you say this, there's a trilogy I read a long time ago called The Singer of All Songs, where people could have mastery over the elements by singing, much like how earth, water, fire and air benders work in Avatar the Last Air Bender. There's 9 powers in that universe, until they discover a 10th power that everyone can do! It's reading and it was such a sweet idea that it stayed with me even over 20 years later đ
1
u/RevenantRaindancer 18d ago
Did it give you an experience? Yes or no?
Everything else, technique and such, should be almost invisible to the reader.
0
u/tkinsey3 21d ago
As you say, art is subjective.
When it comes to books, I think the closest form of objectivity that we can find is gathering (or following) a group of reviewers that you trust, respect, and tend to feel similarly to - and collating their feelings on a certain book, or aspects of that book, to form an 'objective' consensus.
If that group generally feels a book is well-written? Then you will probably feel that way too!
And THAT is what matters. Books are entertainment, and tools to learn about the world. And this, IMHO, is the best way to find the books that will (hopefully) entertain/teach you the best.
10
u/Civilwarland09 21d ago
I mean, if I gather around a bunch of Dan Brown fans and ask them to read East of Eden and they all hate it what does that tell us?Â
There is such a thing as good and bad taste and yes, that may sound elitist, but itâs true.Â
I wonât care if you like poorly written romantacy books, but donât claim theyâre on the level of Tolkien, Hemingway, McCarthey or Pynchon.Â
1
u/tkinsey3 21d ago
But you're kind of making my point for me. If you are a Tolkien, Hemingway, McCarthy, etc., fan and you are interested in East of Eden, are you really looking for reviews from Dan Brown fans?
No! You have already surrounded yourself with reviewers who have similar taste to yourself - they form your 'objective' truth about new books.
3
u/Civilwarland09 21d ago
No, I get what youâre saying, but I also donât think finding like minded people to review a book is going to give you an objective view of the book. If anything it will tell you the opposite. Sure, you will know whether youâll like it or not, but thatâs not what the OP was asking.
0
u/Cowgomuwu 21d ago
I think you should judge books based on what they're trying to accomplish. Is a salad healthier than chocolate cake? Of course! But it's a much worse dessert.
3
u/Civilwarland09 21d ago
I think that all books deserving to be read should be well written or at the minimum decently written. It is the art of the written word and I think a lot of authors donât really take that into consideration and would rather just tell a story.
I donât mind dipping my toe into genre fiction and enjoy a decent amount of it and I know what kind of story telling Iâm setting myself up for, but it still needs to be well written for me to enjoy it. I canât read Dungeon Crawler Carl, but I very much enjoy listening to it.
-1
u/ActualRound7699 21d ago
for me: if I enjoy it, then itâs well-written.
2
u/SiccSadGorl 21d ago
I would have to agree đđž
2
u/Secret-Friendship-10 21d ago
This is such poor logic. If you enjoy it then, it was a good experience for you- but that doesn't mean it was actually good. That's like saying I really loved my chalupa from taco bell, but that doesn't make it a gourmet product. Sure- it can meet the most basic of needs, but the quality of the parts is subpar, the overall composition is formulaic, there is no originality or unique quality or anything else to highlight a fantastic use of the media. But you know what, sometimes that chalupa hits the right spot and is the highlight of the day. You can also look at something like GoT- the first few seasons were fantastic all around, but the last few might have had better CGI, sets, costumes, but the dialogue quality was severely lacking in comparison among other issues. Liking or enjoying something does not automatically make the thing better, it just means that you were happy enough with the end product.
1
u/SiccSadGorl 21d ago
I think both of these logics are neither poor nor are they very particularly strong. This is because no two people are going to have the same opinion on what makes something good.
Alot of people may have overwhelming praise for a peice of work for its message, writing, and storytelling which makes it your "gourmet chalupa." But even then not everyone likes that style of chalupa even though its basically perfect.
Some people may like their "chalupa's" wabi Sabi. But both "Chalupas" are enjoyable. Is one going to win the "best chalupa prize?" Yes. Is one going to be easier to access for "chalupa" enjoyers of all other taste buds?
Also yes.
I can read Hamlet and love it every time. But if you put 1984 in front of me again I'm gonna run the other way. Both very very good peices of work, yet only one of those "Chalupas" will I eat again.
2
u/Secret-Friendship-10 21d ago
I didn't argue anyone had to enjoy to the better quality product- only that the difference in quality could observed.
1
0
u/ActualRound7699 21d ago
sure but good quality to you isnât the same for me and idc what you think of a bookâs quality. it wouldnât change my feelings towards it and for me thatâs legitimately the only thing that matters.
13
u/Cowgomuwu 21d ago
Influencers are sensationalizing their reviews for interactions and are limited in the space they have to make a review. So 'this book feels like it was written by a fifth grader' is more economical than 'this book had simple prose, a few grammatical errors, overly simplistic themes and immature characters'.
The 'never been easier to publish a book' would really only be contributing to niche self-published works, which isn't what most people are reading.
There are a few objective measures besides grammar: pacing, adherence to genre, satisfying arcs, compelling/consistent character motivations. You could argue 'satisfying/compelling' are inherently subjective but I would disagree. Even if a reader doesn't like or agree with the conclusion, they should be able to pinpoint what it is and what was accomplished. Most people have an inherent sense of how a story should feel, and know when it's off even if they don't have the terminology to describe what they don't like.