How do you know when a book is good? This is a silly question probably, right? Is it just a feeling you have? What do you base your feelings on? I know reading is a very personal and subjective activity. I still second guess myself, however, when I read something and enjoy it (to whatever degree--like or love), but someone else finds it lacking or even worse. Am I wrong in my feelings I then wonder? Maybe it was really awful and I simply can't see it. Perhaps it's time to revisit Virginia Woolf's essay How Should One Read a Book?. She begins:
"In the first place, I want to emphasise the note of interrogation at the end of my title. Even if I could answer the question for myself, the answer would apply only to me and not to you. The only advice, indeed, that one person can give another about reading is to take no advice, to follow your own instincts, to use your own reason, to come to your own conclusions. If this is agreed between us, then I feel at liberty to put forward a few ideas and suggestions because you will not allow them to fetter that independence which is the most important quality that a reader can possess. After all, what laws can be laid down about books? The battle of Waterloo was certainly fought on a certain day; but is Hamlet a better play than Lear? Nobody can say. Each must decide that question for himself. To admit authorities, however heavily furred and gowned, into our libraries and let them tell us how to read, what to read, what value to place upon what we read, is to destroy the spirit of freedom which is the breath of those sanctuaries. Everywhere else we may be bound by laws and conventions—there we have none."
Of course she goes on to give some very good advice, and her advice seems mostly geared towards reading classics or more high brow literature. Would you expect anything less from Virginia Woolf? I admit I read a hodgepodge of books. Some are classics and some are "literature" (how does one differentiate between classics, literature and all other books?), and others are more comfort reads (books that are not likely to ever win any awards, but are thoroughly entertaining nonetheless). I know I should read a better diet of books, but I don't think I will ever give up my comfort reads (just like I won't ever give up dark chocolate).
So I am curious. What elements make a novel successful? Characters and plot? How am I to tell if a character is three-dimensional or flat? You expect the main character to have depth, but others often seem to be just supporting characters and it is harder to get inside their minds. What makes a strong plot? Just that it is believable? I think I am a very forgiving reader at times. I probably let an author slide on certain elements if I like a character or I like the storyline. I can be a lazy reader, too (depending on the book--I put more energy into a classic or a book that I am reading in a group for discussion than a book that is meant to be a quick fluffy read for example). I am probably not Zadie Smith's ideal reader that's for certain. I like to be entertained primarily and want to learn on occasion. I do want to get the most out of any book that I can, though. Am I a bad reader? I have contemplated taking lit classes at the university where I work, but if I did I would audit the class. I want the knowledge, but I don't want the work of writing about what I am reading--at least not in any formal way. Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I am always questioning my abilities as a "good" reader. I want to be more discerning, but I want to also enjoy the books I am reading and not be overly critical. How do you approach your reading? I suppose everyone wants something different out of what they choose to read.
In any case, I like what Emerson has to say:
“'Tis the good reader that makes the good book; a good head cannot read amiss: in every book he finds passages which seem confidences or asides hidden from all else and unmistakeably meant for his ear.”