Why do we like the books we like?
DiscussãoHobnob with Authors
Aderi ao LibraryThing para poder publicar.
1LShelby
So I've started feeling better, and yesterday I pulled a library book that had been waiting for me for a month off the shelf...
... and realized at about 30 pages in that I wasn't enjoying myself at all.
The reason I had this book checked out was because it was one someone else I knew really liked, and I was curious about it. But I found it so unlikeable that this morning I sent it back to the library less than half read.
And that got me thinking, once again, about what it is that makes a person like or dislike a book.
In every book I've read there have been things that I like, and things that I don't like. If there are enough things that I like, I will keep reading even if there are few things I don't like. But once the ratio of don't like to like passes a certain point, I close the book and walk away.
I have identified some of the things I like:
I like watching characters work for and reach worthwhile goals.
I like watching people be clever.
I like to see positive long-term relationships form.
I like swash-buckling action.
But there must be a whole lot of things out there that are liked by people who aren't me, because I keep running into these books that I don't like and going "How exactly did this book become someone's favorite? I don't get it." What was the secret ingredient that made that book so popular with some other reader, that seemed not to exist at all as far as I was concerned?
My two best guesses in this case are that other readers like:
Visual description for the sake of visual description.
"Realistic" characters. (Meaning, apparently, that every character is deeply flawed in some way.)
But I keep thinking there must be more things that other people like that I've not really wrapped my brain around yet. I'm wondering what the rest of y'all can come up with.
... and realized at about 30 pages in that I wasn't enjoying myself at all.
The reason I had this book checked out was because it was one someone else I knew really liked, and I was curious about it. But I found it so unlikeable that this morning I sent it back to the library less than half read.
And that got me thinking, once again, about what it is that makes a person like or dislike a book.
In every book I've read there have been things that I like, and things that I don't like. If there are enough things that I like, I will keep reading even if there are few things I don't like. But once the ratio of don't like to like passes a certain point, I close the book and walk away.
I have identified some of the things I like:
I like watching characters work for and reach worthwhile goals.
I like watching people be clever.
I like to see positive long-term relationships form.
I like swash-buckling action.
But there must be a whole lot of things out there that are liked by people who aren't me, because I keep running into these books that I don't like and going "How exactly did this book become someone's favorite? I don't get it." What was the secret ingredient that made that book so popular with some other reader, that seemed not to exist at all as far as I was concerned?
My two best guesses in this case are that other readers like:
Visual description for the sake of visual description.
"Realistic" characters. (Meaning, apparently, that every character is deeply flawed in some way.)
But I keep thinking there must be more things that other people like that I've not really wrapped my brain around yet. I'm wondering what the rest of y'all can come up with.
2paradoxosalpha
I'm reading Wolfe's Book of the Short Sun right now. Some of its features that I'm enjoying:
- exotic world-building handled through narrative rather than exposition
- conundrums about writing and reading woven through a story
- characters who have strong feelings for and against each other, and arcs where those feelings change
- exotic world-building handled through narrative rather than exposition
- conundrums about writing and reading woven through a story
- characters who have strong feelings for and against each other, and arcs where those feelings change
3reading_fox
I like complex characters who are living on the edge between right and wrong - where that edge isn't clear and they doing the best they can.
I like fully realised worlds where the author has thought about why towns(locations in general) exist and how everybody else in the world lives when the heroes aren't there. But then doesn't beat the reader over the head with this.
I like single POV
Details that matter -enough but not too many!
Actions that have consequences
Unless deliberately broken with explanations, that the rules of physics/chemistry/biology hold even when inconvenient.
I don't like:
love at first sight. People smitten solely by physical attributes
the opposites of ^
coincidences (one or two at most per book are allowed)
overly forgiving characters who don't learn
unrelated plot lines in the same novel - tricky balance as these sometimes add background to characters
And general poor writing skills (I don't notice the good writing sadly)
Unclear pronouns
Similar names especially polysybillic
Telling how characters feel
I seldom close the book, I just write scathing reviews.
I like fully realised worlds where the author has thought about why towns(locations in general) exist and how everybody else in the world lives when the heroes aren't there. But then doesn't beat the reader over the head with this.
I like single POV
Details that matter -enough but not too many!
Actions that have consequences
Unless deliberately broken with explanations, that the rules of physics/chemistry/biology hold even when inconvenient.
I don't like:
love at first sight. People smitten solely by physical attributes
the opposites of ^
coincidences (one or two at most per book are allowed)
overly forgiving characters who don't learn
unrelated plot lines in the same novel - tricky balance as these sometimes add background to characters
And general poor writing skills (I don't notice the good writing sadly)
Unclear pronouns
Similar names especially polysybillic
Telling how characters feel
I seldom close the book, I just write scathing reviews.
4Cecrow
I need to empathize with the protagonist. Doesn't need to be a hero, but the motives and choices need to make sense. Easiest to empathize when he or she is a clear victim of injustice. Then I need a hook to wonder what happens next.
5LeonStevens
I am very particular with my books. Books have to hook me by the first chapter or its bye-bye booky.
I think it's easier to list dislikes
- overly technical writing
- having to look up unfamiliar words
- sexual or disturbing content
- long descriptions (probably why I write short stories primarily)
I think it's easier to list dislikes
- overly technical writing
- having to look up unfamiliar words
- sexual or disturbing content
- long descriptions (probably why I write short stories primarily)
6paradoxosalpha
Wow, Leon. I could have guessed it, but our tastes sure differ. Three of your four turn-offs are in fact attractions for me. I would only omit "overly technical writing," but I'm not sure what you mean by that, so maybe I like it too?
7LeonStevens
>6 paradoxosalpha: I enjoy science fiction, but I'm not interested in how everything works to the exact detail. Early sci-fi writers would make up or elude to the inner workings of ships/time travel etc., but as many advancements happened and many writers had a scientific background, this type of writing became more popular. I think it is what you call Hard Science fiction.
I stated somewhere here before about how I approach science writing in my science fiction. If I want my character to travel faster than light to get somewhere, then they do. If someone asked how it works, I would say "You just press that green button."
I stated somewhere here before about how I approach science writing in my science fiction. If I want my character to travel faster than light to get somewhere, then they do. If someone asked how it works, I would say "You just press that green button."
8LShelby
>2 paradoxosalpha:
Points 1 and 3 I understand, and I'm all for 1 myself... but 3 not so much. Which makes me happy, actually. I like it when the lists don't align, it makes me feel like I'm learning something. :)
I'm not sure I really understand what your second like is about. Would you be willing to post an example?
Points 1 and 3 I understand, and I'm all for 1 myself... but 3 not so much. Which makes me happy, actually. I like it when the lists don't align, it makes me feel like I'm learning something. :)
I'm not sure I really understand what your second like is about. Would you be willing to post an example?
9LShelby
>3 reading_fox:
Your list of likes works pretty well for me too, which probably doesn't surprise either of us.
But the first point: "living on the edge between right and wrong - where that edge isn't clear" makes me stop and ponder -- I don't seem to be certain how I react to what you are describing. Maybe I don't react much to it, it's just a thing that for me is either there or not?
I tried to turn it backward to see if that clarified things for me: "Simple characters who have no difficulty discerning right from wrong..." Interestingly that doesn't sound either bad or good to me in and of itself, but it does make me worry that the worldbuilding might be problematic. If the world isn't horribly simplistic, how could it possibly be that easy?
This point of yours also reminded me strongly of a show I just watched.
One of the supporting characters was an evil schemer who was "in love" (for no particular reason that I could figure out) with an ostensibly good character, who kept deciding that she would marry this man that she knew was evil for the sake of being able to use some of his power to assist the people she cared about, and otherwise protect them from his schemes. Everyone else kept trying to convince her this was a really bad plan, and succeeded in convincing her twice, only to have her change her mind again. In the end, the people she cared about and wanted to help were killed or critically injured by him.
This was not a sub-plot that I enjoyed at all. I almost dropped the show because of it.
So my question is: did I dislike it because I'm not into things that look morally ambiguous and complex, or did I dislike it because I thought she was making the wrong choices?
Her brother seemed to me to be a much simpler character, but he also had tough choices and did the best he could. I'm not sure all his choices were right, but they never seemed as clearly stupid as his sister's choices. I liked him. If his plot arc wasn't tied so closely with his sister's I think I might have enjoyed it?
Your list of likes works pretty well for me too, which probably doesn't surprise either of us.
But the first point: "living on the edge between right and wrong - where that edge isn't clear" makes me stop and ponder -- I don't seem to be certain how I react to what you are describing. Maybe I don't react much to it, it's just a thing that for me is either there or not?
I tried to turn it backward to see if that clarified things for me: "Simple characters who have no difficulty discerning right from wrong..." Interestingly that doesn't sound either bad or good to me in and of itself, but it does make me worry that the worldbuilding might be problematic. If the world isn't horribly simplistic, how could it possibly be that easy?
This point of yours also reminded me strongly of a show I just watched.
One of the supporting characters was an evil schemer who was "in love" (for no particular reason that I could figure out) with an ostensibly good character, who kept deciding that she would marry this man that she knew was evil for the sake of being able to use some of his power to assist the people she cared about, and otherwise protect them from his schemes. Everyone else kept trying to convince her this was a really bad plan, and succeeded in convincing her twice, only to have her change her mind again. In the end, the people she cared about and wanted to help were killed or critically injured by him.
This was not a sub-plot that I enjoyed at all. I almost dropped the show because of it.
So my question is: did I dislike it because I'm not into things that look morally ambiguous and complex, or did I dislike it because I thought she was making the wrong choices?
Her brother seemed to me to be a much simpler character, but he also had tough choices and did the best he could. I'm not sure all his choices were right, but they never seemed as clearly stupid as his sister's choices. I liked him. If his plot arc wasn't tied so closely with his sister's I think I might have enjoyed it?
10paradoxosalpha
>8 LShelby:
Well, I had The Book of the Short Sun there as the object in question, where the narrator is writing the book and seems uncertain about why or whom he is addressing--often it is the wife he left behind at the start of his adventures, sometimes it is a speculative posterity. He had written another book before, and often reflects on how he had to reconstruct details about the events he seeks to recount.
The paragon of this "conundrums about writing and reading woven through a story" would be If on a winter's night a traveler, and Robert Irwin's novels are all good examples as well.
Well, I had The Book of the Short Sun there as the object in question, where the narrator is writing the book and seems uncertain about why or whom he is addressing--often it is the wife he left behind at the start of his adventures, sometimes it is a speculative posterity. He had written another book before, and often reflects on how he had to reconstruct details about the events he seeks to recount.
The paragon of this "conundrums about writing and reading woven through a story" would be If on a winter's night a traveler, and Robert Irwin's novels are all good examples as well.
11LShelby
>10 paradoxosalpha:
Alas, I haven't read a single one of them! Maybe I should. But I bounce off of Gene Wolfe hard. When I was subscribed to Locus, I would know that any book he raved over I wouldn't enjoy much, but if he spoke of it slightingly "it isn't too terrible if you are into that sort of thing" there was a good chance I'd like it. Clearly he and I are looking for very different things in our books.
In Cantata in Coral and Ivory I have something that might maybe count as a conundrum about writing? The narrator knows perfectly well who he is writing for, he is writing for the courtiers and court of his native country of Borgim. But he wants to say things that he, as a servitor of that court, just isn't allowed to say, and to tell truths that he is supposed to be ignoring or overlooking. So he spends the entire book lying in such a way that he hopes it will be obvious that he's lying.
Alas, I haven't read a single one of them! Maybe I should. But I bounce off of Gene Wolfe hard. When I was subscribed to Locus, I would know that any book he raved over I wouldn't enjoy much, but if he spoke of it slightingly "it isn't too terrible if you are into that sort of thing" there was a good chance I'd like it. Clearly he and I are looking for very different things in our books.
In Cantata in Coral and Ivory I have something that might maybe count as a conundrum about writing? The narrator knows perfectly well who he is writing for, he is writing for the courtiers and court of his native country of Borgim. But he wants to say things that he, as a servitor of that court, just isn't allowed to say, and to tell truths that he is supposed to be ignoring or overlooking. So he spends the entire book lying in such a way that he hopes it will be obvious that he's lying.
13reading_fox
#9 "Her brother seemed to me to be a much simpler character, but he also had tough choices and did the best he could. I'm not sure all his choices were right"
This is what I meant. Where the antagonist isn't a bad person because they've decided to be evil, they've just made different choices that you as a reader can plausibly believe are the ones they thought were the best at the time. Battle Ground and False Flag manage to do this wonderfully presenting both sides of a complex situation (CoI my friend wrote them). I thoroughly enjoyed Cantata, although it's quite unexpectedly different!
This is what I meant. Where the antagonist isn't a bad person because they've decided to be evil, they've just made different choices that you as a reader can plausibly believe are the ones they thought were the best at the time. Battle Ground and False Flag manage to do this wonderfully presenting both sides of a complex situation (CoI my friend wrote them). I thoroughly enjoyed Cantata, although it's quite unexpectedly different!
14LShelby
>13 reading_fox: " Where the antagonist isn't a bad person because they've decided to be evil
See, I would consider that to be stupid. :) (My daughter and I watched a show together and every time one of the supporting characters appeared, we would go "so are we going to find out why she decided to help the evil god out, yet?" We never did.)
My have always used a mix of, as I call them, villains and antagonists. (I know technically the villains are also antagonists, but I liked having some way to differentiate between them) But I have noticed that I have a stronger tendency to have "morally ambiguous" supporting characters recently. (Recently as in the past five or six years? For me that's recent.) So maybe I am coming to value this trait more? Maybe if I live long enough I will eventually start writing morally ambiguous protagonists?
...Aren't people supposed to become more conservative as they age?
Anyway I took a look at your friends books, and I've added the first one to my "to purchase" list, but it might take me a couple months to get to it, because I just spent this months discretionary spending on a music notation app, because now that I'm well enough to sit up and play for an hour or so, I am once again buried in a slew of songbooks and sheet music. ::rueful::
>12 paradoxosalpha:
That sounds like an interesting set of essays... so, er, I just requested it on interlibrary loan.
As an aside: Now that I am reading again, the length of my library "hold" list is getting scary long. I guess I'm trying to make make up for lost time? Anyway, it's been nice not to be watching so much tv, but my handiwork has been suffering, since I when I am well enough I usually multitask tatting/crocheting with watching shows. I am currently well enough, but I got so sick of shows earlier that I've been coming up with any other activity rather than shows to occupy my down time. (Like transferring electronic score files to my tablet.)
See, I would consider that to be stupid. :) (My daughter and I watched a show together and every time one of the supporting characters appeared, we would go "so are we going to find out why she decided to help the evil god out, yet?" We never did.)
My have always used a mix of, as I call them, villains and antagonists. (I know technically the villains are also antagonists, but I liked having some way to differentiate between them) But I have noticed that I have a stronger tendency to have "morally ambiguous" supporting characters recently. (Recently as in the past five or six years? For me that's recent.) So maybe I am coming to value this trait more? Maybe if I live long enough I will eventually start writing morally ambiguous protagonists?
...Aren't people supposed to become more conservative as they age?
Anyway I took a look at your friends books, and I've added the first one to my "to purchase" list, but it might take me a couple months to get to it, because I just spent this months discretionary spending on a music notation app, because now that I'm well enough to sit up and play for an hour or so, I am once again buried in a slew of songbooks and sheet music. ::rueful::
>12 paradoxosalpha:
That sounds like an interesting set of essays... so, er, I just requested it on interlibrary loan.
As an aside: Now that I am reading again, the length of my library "hold" list is getting scary long. I guess I'm trying to make make up for lost time? Anyway, it's been nice not to be watching so much tv, but my handiwork has been suffering, since I when I am well enough I usually multitask tatting/crocheting with watching shows. I am currently well enough, but I got so sick of shows earlier that I've been coming up with any other activity rather than shows to occupy my down time. (Like transferring electronic score files to my tablet.)
