So like, what’s the criteria?
Earlier today I was having a bit of a debate about the merits of The Catcher in The Rye over at Ration Reality and it got me thinking about how we personally judge the books we read. And also how we justify our opinions if someone else disagrees with them.
You see, I started thinking that it requires more of a reason – or at least a debatable reason – to explain why you dislike a book, especially if you really hate it, than if you simply like and enjoy a book. Like me and The Da Vinci Code, for example. I mean, I know I could write a seriously critical review of that piece of shit without resorting to simply bad-mouthing it and saying it sucks. 😉
But it seems much more difficult to explain why you like a book and get that sense of it across to others … especially if they hold negative opinions about it. I’m not sure how you can debate that.
What are your thoughts on this?
casa azahar 
“…especially if they hold negative opinions about it.”
We would agree then, that the same could be said for people that hold positive opinions about a book.
LikeLike
Lemme try.
I find Dan Brown’s writing style to be immature and childlike. It’s insulting. However, the book is a fun adventure, if you can suspend your disbelief.
I read the entire book in one sitting, which it rare for someone with my “oohh, shiny” attention span. I was laughing at his technique the entire time, but I read it, and I enjoyed it. But don’t tell anyone, ok?
LikeLike
Bagel: I won’t. As long as no one ever finds out about my Shel Silverstein collection.
LikeLike
The stuff for adults or children?
The childrens (I never know where to put that apostrophe) books aren’t nearly as good as his adult humor.
LikeLike
Well, yeah kinda … except when someone says (for example) “I really loved the Da Vinci Code!” do you actually feel a personal need to set them straight? Or do you (like me) just shrug your shoulders and let them get on with their sad and impoverished lives? 😉
But when someone says to me that a book I have always loved like, for instance, oh let me think now … The Catcher in the Rye? … is crap for reasons that don’t really feel like solid reasons to me, I want to debate that.
You see, I quite agree with Bagel’s point about Dan Brown’s writing…
But you can’t give the same argument for Salinger. He has a very simple writing style but it is not in any way simplistic.
Oh, what a long comment! Shutting up now…
LikeLike
Damn near no one coming out of high school or college today knows how to write a good book review or monograph. Too often their efforts fall into
a) I couldn’t dance to it – I gave it a 30
b) It’s like reading a Stephen King book (which one, idiot?)
c) Look what I found in my lecture notes (and please dear God don’t let them realize I have no idea what all those big words mean)
d) The book is about this and this is how it ended.
To write a really decent book review, you actually have to have read some about the subject and actually know a little bit about it (two entirely different things, especially if you look at Bush’s pride in reading lots of history books and then looking at how he applies those, if any, lessons he’s learned).
Then you can begin to hope that you can make intelligent observations about the book, put them into context, hope that you can somehow divine the author’s intent and, finally, make a useful decision about whether the book has any usefulness or purpose woth mentioning.
Never, ever let a history major post on a subject like this . . . .
LikeLike
I have a Messiah to mentor, so the adult stuff won’t be on our shelves for a few years. I always considered the children’s books to be very adult oriented. Especially after hearing the recorded versions of his classics as read by him. Good stuff.
LikeLike
And I’m off to google Shel Silverstein…
LikeLike
It’s actually a very complicated question.
Is there is any set of objective criteria for how good or bad a book is? Or even any way of deciding who gets to say what’s objective?
But if not, does this mean it’s just a matter of individual opinion? Or even individual opinion in the aggregate (ie whether something is popular or not)?
Of course, both of these are exteme positions, but the basic problem still asserts itself even in between the extremes.
LikeLike
@Az: Point taken. Let them be. Nothing good can come of that. However, I wouldn’t say that Salinger was simplistic. I am sure that it is, in most eyes, a well thought out work. It read more like a short version of the Bible to me. It is very detailed in the areas you would expect it to be very vague in and very vague in areas you would expect it to be very detailed. Help, I know there is a much simpler way of communicating that last thought.
LikeLike
And now I’m going to have to read it again to give you a sensible answer. Curiously, I just bought a copy for Nog the other day because *gasp!* he’s never read it. But I can start it tonight and get back to you (both) with a clearer and updated opinion. It would be quite interesting if I ended up agreeing with you! 🙂
LikeLike
look forward to it. If you find the time, stop by my flat on the angry and vulgar end of town.
LikeLike
Oh, um, yes … what a lovely invitation. I’ll be sure to do that. 🙂
LikeLike
Well, since I have a creative writing degree and am a bookworm, I feel I can be very specific when I don’t like a book. I read The Da Vinci Code, too, and like Bagel, I found his writing style to be childish and immature, but I also found the plot to be far-fetched and some of the things completely implausible (does the Louvre still use bar soap in its public washrooms, for instance? I’ve never been there, but I’d be surprised. Therefore, they couldn’t have chucked the tracking device out of the window in a bar of soap, etc.). His prose was stilted and his handling of internal dialogue unnatural and jarring. Blah x3. Books are so subjective, though, but I can understand if you wish to debate why you like something and someone else doesn’t, and this someone else can’t be specific or detailed about what s/he felt was wrong about the book. Making a blanket statement like “it sucked” isn’t good enough for me, either, but if someone were to say that to me, I’d probably think s/he wasn’t worth debating with anyways.
Just my two cents!
LikeLike
Great comment, WC – what’s your take on The Catcher in the Rye? Brilliant? Overrated pap? Something in between?
The worst thing about The Da Vinci Code for me was just the hideously BAD writing, along with 2-dimensional characters, stupid see-through plot and the knowledge that Umberto Eco had already done it way better, with style, aplomb and elegance, in Foucault’s Pendulum.
I really just read Da Vinci to see what the fuss was all about. Lowest common denominator best seller pretty much sums it up for me.
LikeLike
And while ‘it sucked’ won’t suffice, neither will ‘It is very excellent’.
LikeLike
Okay okay already! 😉
Gosh, going to have to sharpen both my pencil and my wit to do this one …
LikeLike
I have not read Catcher in the Rye. Yeah, shocking, I know!
I only read The Da Vinci Code because someone gave me a copy and I needed something light to read while in my acute depression phase just over a year ago.
LikeLike
Wow, bet that helped!
That book depressed the hell outta me I can tell you…
LikeLike
Reminds of once when I had two flatmates and when one moved out he bought me a Catherine Cookson novel as a leaving gift because he knew I liked reading.
My other flatmate took one look at it and said – ‘this is like giving you a tin of dogfood because he knows you like eating!’. 🙂
LikeLike
I’ve never read any Catherine Cookson, but my dad kinda likes her, and they’ve made some of her books into TV movies. I’ve seen a couple of those and they were OK.
LikeLike
Apparently she didn’t start writing until after she was 40 and then ended up writing something like eighty books.
I did read the one given to me and just have vague memories of it being rather mediocre, as opposed to my still vivid memories of Dan Brown’s writing being crap.
LikeLike
I read The Catcher in the Rye when I was, like, 13 and liked it. I read a few other books by J.D. Salinger after that but no one caught my interest like the first one.
…and don’t get me started on “Dan Brown”…
LikeLike
I like how you put his name in inverted commas as if he’s not a real … oh, right.
Something that makes a book *good* for me is when, as well as enjoying an interesting, well-written story, I also learn new stuff about history, cultures, psychology, philosophy, science, etc without it being too obviously ‘teachy or preachy’.
Some favourite authors who do this very well are Robertson Davies, Umberto Eco, Lindsey Davis … and Nog throws in a vote for George MacDonald Fraser (he’s on the sofa finishing The Deathly Hallows and is too lazy to get up and post himself).
LikeLike
I tend to like books that create a strong emotional response in me – either through the subject matter, the style, the imagery, or whatever. I also like well-rounded, interesting characters that leap off the page and into the imagination. I will put down a book based purely on bad prose. There is no excuse for bad prose, IMO; that’s what editors are for!
LikeLike
Yeah, I agree about bad prose. It doesn’t have to be great prose if it has other things going for it, but bad prose just gets in the way of anything that’s being said.
LikeLike
I still like FFE’s comment 6.
Because I think we rate books in quite superficial ways, most of the time.
Would it be possible for any or all of you to give us a review of a book you particularly like? I’m going off to work on one now …
LikeLike
I have lots of book reviews on my blog. Links over on the drop down menu on the sidebar.
LikeLike
I’m sorely tempted to write a review of a completely imaginary book, just to see how many people claim to have read it.
LikeLike
Go for it!
LikeLike
Hmmm. Interesting.
It’s useful to take Catcher in the Rye as an example, since it’s a book I love with a passion.
First of all, there’s the language. It’s not so much that it’s grand or poetic or clever. But at least it’s crafted. It isn’t just a pedestrian way of putting the plot over. It has a voice.
Then there’s the structure. I’m trying to avoid the poncey term ‘multi-layered’ – but I can’t think of a better one. There’s more going on in it than the simple story or characterisation. For example – and this may revolutionise your understanding – one reading is that it reflects Salinger’s experience of returning home from WWII. All these young men have been killed or damaged, but nobody’s acknowledging the pain. “Where do the ducks go in winter?”
So take another example – Ian McEwan’s Saturday – a brilliant, technically-accomplished book in which various layers about the nature of consciousness are woven into a day in the life of a neurosurgeon.
I find that it is often what I call the ‘structure’ of a book that impresses me. I’m not sure if that’s the right word, though. Any suggestions?
LikeLike
Almost there … finishing Catcher in the Rye. You know, I’m actually enjoying it more than I remember doing before, and I’ve always liked reading it. Anyhow, there hasn’t been much time for reading this past week but I hope to finish it soon.
The ‘mosaic’ of the book, Edward? Maybe?
LikeLike
Maybe mosaic. Except that mosaics aren’t intertwined. The ‘weave’?
Did you see what I mean about TCitR as a post WWII novel?
LikeLike
Yes – I like ‘weave’. Telling a story is about making all the threads fit together.
LikeLike
Yeah, I like ‘weave’ too. That works much better than ‘mosaic’.
As a post WW2 novel … well, you know that before it was first published as a book in 1951 it was published in serial form in the US 1945-56, though I don’t know where.
Yes, I agree with you that the language is crafted and quite special. And while some of Holden’s ideas are clearly adolescent musings, quite a lot of them are challenging to everyone at any age. Also, what he thinks and the way he behaves are often at odds. So you might have the most high-falutin’ concepts rattling around in your head but you still end up acting like a jerk in certain social situations.
I mentioned on another blog that rereading Catcher in the Rye was giving me as many laugh out loud moments as reading Pratchett. I was then blasted for comparing the ‘genius’ Pratchett to the ‘hack’ Salinger, but I was really just comparing how much I laughed out loud.
LikeLike
Finally finished Catcher in the Rye a few days ago … the ending has left me somewhat puzzled.
It’s interesting (to me) how much of the book I’d totally forgotten about. Like the panic attacks Holden has when he’s walking in the street, everytime he comes to an intersection. Reminded me a bit of how mine feel.
I don’t think I would have made the connection to WW2 vets coming home, but I can see how it fits.
LikeLike
The ending…
One view might be that it just fizzles out. Another might be ‘life goes on’…which fits in with the vets reading. No matter how angsty Holden (or Salinger) are feeling about things, it’s still all going to be swept under the carpet. They’re just going to have to cope.
We’re to suppose that Holden is in a psychiatric hospital, surely? He’s being ‘helped to adjust’.
Hmm. I’ve just this second made a mental connection with the psychiatric hospital in ‘The Master and Margarita’, which I’m reading just now. An excellent book! There, the inmates are realising that there’s no point fiting Satan. They might as well comply.
I had a book recommendation by a Spanish author from a flirty waitress last night, but I can’t find the order slip she wrote it on. (No, she didn’t give me her phone No.) It sounded like it had the ‘structure’ elements I like.
LikeLike
Found it by a miracle. Here. What I googled was nothing to do with either the title or the author’s name.
LikeLike
Talk about coincidences … I’ve had that book on my night table for months, the original Spanish version. I did read the first couple of chapters but then got lazy about reading in Spanish. Think I’ll have another bash at it.
I’ve never been sure if Holden was talking from a psychiatric hospital or just to a therapist his parents found for him.
Just having to cope, to deal with all the ‘phoneys’ and whatever … I wonder how much of that is also Salinger since he took to being a hermit. And that Holden did have these very insightful moments but when he had to deal with *reality* often reverted to being a bit of an adolescent jerk – almost in spite of himself – also sounds true in terms of how many of us behave when our fine notions come up against having to put them into practice in the *real world*.
LikeLike
Ed – once you’ve finished “Master and Margarita”, do make sure to watch the (excellent) TV adaptation of it they had on in Russia last year. You can buy a DVD box set or find it on isohunt. Also, there’s an excellent web page (which I’m sure you can easily find by googling) which explains all of the symbolism. You probably caught more of it than I did (my bible knowledge all comes from that lego bible story site I posted a while ago), but some of it is fairly obscure (and quite important).
LikeLike
Hey, that Lego bible is not to be sniffed at!
And this Wiki page seems to have quite a good synopsis of Master and Margarita.
LikeLike
Oh, I don’t sniff at the lego bible, I just wonder if it’s really an authoritative scholarly source… 😉
The Wiki page is quite good, but the one I found has much more. The Wiki page does actually link to it though: here.
LikeLike
You mean, unlike all those other ones? 😛
LikeLike
Oh – so you’re one of those lucky people, like my wife, who managed to miss out on a scriptural education. No kidding – if you mention something to her like ‘loaves and fishes’, she has no idea what you mean.
The coincidences around The Shadow of the Wind intensify. I found it in Oxfam on Saturday…and another copy in Barnados. (Plus two Graham Greene’s I’ve not read, and Jonathan Safran Foer’s last which he says owes a debt to Vonnegut).
LikeLike