I'm not quite sure if this is the right place to post, but here I go anyways!

I was just wondering, what exactly makes a novel "good?" And by novel, I don't mean fanfiction or classics (Scarlet Letter, Moby Dick, Old Man and the Sea, etc.), but rather, an original work of fiction. And by "good," I kind of mean best selling. ^^;;

Classics primarily aim to educate, whereas the "fiction of the day," so to speak, aims primarily to entertain. I'm sure that when JKR wrote Harry Potter, she wasn't intending to teach eleven-year olds every moral value in the book plus some.

The most obvious thing I can think of is children. A pleasurable book to read generally involves children, e.g. HP (duh), Ender's Game, everything by Tamora Pierce, and a large solid chunk of Garth Nix's works.

Secondary is a well-defined universe with it's own social ladder, games, systems, unique technology (or magic), and the like.

Blending the distinction between courage and recklessness seems to be a good element of well-written fiction as well, and these are the main 3 things I can come up with off the top of my head.

What do you guys think?

 

This will, I'm sure, be a disappointing reply for the OP:

"Quality" is an ephemeral thing that is hard to pin down. Didn't the search for it drive Phaedrus mad?*

But I'd caution against defining it as related to "best selling," because then it's pretty simple--how much profit can you rake in? By this metric, some of the highest quality pieces of fiction in history are JKR's, L. Ron. Hubbard's, and Ann Coulter's. And the Bible.

For what it's worth, I would argue that Ender's Game is hardly a good novel, except by the market metric. The characterization was pretty poor (the "kids" were hardly kids--more like little Athenas emerging fully formed) and the plot was pretty weak after they left the school. Card can't write kids. Period.

Damn, Oz. I've got to put you on my ignore list--that elephant is just too distracting. (Almost as bad as Vash's tits).

*Go read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig.

 

Something important and common in most good novels is characterization. People want to read a character with bravery, recklessness, and a plethora of other personality traits that they a.) don't possess, and b.) admire.

If you can create and develop a character that people respect and sometimes relate to, then it's easier for a reader to immerse themselves in the story.

Of course, characterization is meaningless without a decent plot. But that's a different can of worms entirely.

 

What makes a good novel? Hm...many things, to be sure. The one most important thing to a good novel, though, in my personal opinion...conflict. Definitely conflict. If a novel does not have this, if it does not have this in strides, chances are, it's a piece of shit.

After that, characterization is another key element (not quite as important, but still very important). Without believable characters, the novel is bound to fail. If the novelist has the ability to make the characters like real people - that is, has amazing characterization - then the novel is bound to be good (unless, of course, it does not have conflict).

Beyond that, I'd pin it down to Plot. Now, ultimately plot is an amalgamation of various elements (including, but certainly not limited to conflict and characterization), but it is worth mentioning on its own, for obvious reasons.

 

What makes a best-selling novel? Dude, were that common knowledge, "How To Write Best-sellers" would've been a college course.

How to write a "good" novel, now (and I know what little I know about that strictly by failing to churn up one despite my honest efforts) ...

1. Characters. Interesting characters, I think, are the most important parts of a novel, even more than plot. This means:

a. We like the hero and his sidekicks, meaning a blend of empathy, sympathy and identification in the reader's part. All of us had suffered through daydreams of being someone else, right? An ideal hero should be as close to that someone else as possible.

b. We find the villain interesting, either due to his badass-ness(... that's not a word, is it. Hell, you get the idea.), intelligence and cunning, or even (see also: Humour) his sheer stupidity.

c. The side characters are interesting in their own right, meaning we wonder about them and their motives all the time. See also: dialogues.

d. The characterization is consistent. This, however, does not mean that the characters should be bland and utterly predictable.

For example, in the Potter series, the frequent outbursts and Harry's attempts at the Cruciatus are very different from the honest-to-goodness heroism displayed in his earlier books. But all of us agree that the capacity for that act was already in him. We would've agreed even after reading only PoA, or GoF (at least, I would have). Thus his character has grown, but has not become inconsistent (even though that action wasn't anything like what we'd seen earlier). Harry refusing to kill in DH, now, that seemed inconsistent to me. A Harry who killed when it was needed would've been a far better (and believable) outcome after what he went through in the last two books.

e. The dialogue between two characters should be consistent with what we know of them and their motives. Harry talking with Ginny about how he's rich and has a billion galleons, for example, does not fit with his character; Ginny saying "Oh Harry, my love" after their first kiss does not fit with hers. Thus are truly disgusting fanfics born.

2. Conflict: This is secondary to me in the sense that a novel with conflict in it but very bad characterisation would be scrapped by me in favour of another with truly interesting characters and less conflict. Of course, a story completely without conflict isn't a story at all, but to be fair, nor is a story completely without characters. Often the uniqueness of the characters themselves make the conflict epic, but not vice versa.

3. Plot. Have some plot, niggers. Have some plot that makes sense (meaning believable motives in part of the characters: Voldemort wanting to make infant!Harry his heir because he has somehow fallen in love with him, for example, does not make any sense. Nor does Harry waking up as a veela and deciding he wants Draco as his mate, only because he's blonde. Or, even, Daphney/Tracey/Random-girl-untapped-in-canon. Sorry.) Interesting Charcters + Believable Motives + Random Stuff That Counts As Coincidence/Luck And Creates Uncertainty And Suspense == A Good Start.

Fuck, I could go on. But these are the more important parts of a good novel, to me.

There are, of course, books on the art of novel writing. Some are even helpful. I recommend James Frey's. That was a good one.

 

For what it's worth, I found the one by Oakley Hall to be pretty helpful (The Art of Novel Writing if I remember correctly).

 

That elephant is great.

And Vash changed his avatar, so no need to worry anymore.

 

I know its been a wee while since the last post, but it seems a worthy topic to be continued.

One of the things that really makes a good novel in my personal opinion is where the protagonist/good guy/main character comes from an unusual situation, either because it puts them at a disadvantage (perceived or otherwise) or because it makes them different from the majority of the other characters in the book.

For instance (drawing from a few novels I rank as some of the best) in Lord of the Rings we have Frodo, a country yokel, a hobbit, not stupid but not portrayed as spectacularly intelligent either. He's short, he's naive, he's relatively uneducated. But he prevails against all the odds.

In Harry Potter, we have Harry, who grows up in an...oppressive atmosphere. Not as abusive as is generally portrayed in fanon, but not kind to him. He lived in the cupboard under the stairs, was denied friends and was bullied from 0-11. By our modern culture he is greatly disadvantaged, but he grows from their to become the hero, to save the world.

In the Rai-Kirah trilogy, we have Seyonne, who at the start of the trilogy is a slave, stripped of all his power, down trodden, all but broken. He's not exactly the uneducated, weak being the other two examples seem to be, but he is shown as the lowest of the low, denied all that he once was, cut off from his past and his heritage. He goes from there to saving the world, becoming someone of immense power.

The creation of a character that uses an unusual base of characterisation is something of hook, designed to make you wonder "How is this guy going to succeed, surely he can't win, he's too weak." You read on to find out the answer.

Beyond that you need a good plot, one that isn't too simple (other wise the reader guesses the result and gets bored) but not too complex (casual reading shouldn't require too much concentration). Just the right number of subplots can make a novel go from good to excellent, but too many can drop it down to average or poor. The plot should flow well, without jumping around and leaving the reader wondering wtf just happened.

I think there have to be aspect of the novel that the reader can identify with. Either because they have known/felt/seen similar things, or have wished for/imagined/dreamed of similar things. By identifying with the text the reader gains an attachment to it. I mean, I can go and read the classics, but I don't get absorbed into them (generally) because I can't really identify with the characters, or the themes, or the plot.

There also needs to be a...descriptive quality to the text. When I read a good novel, I see it in my mind - sort of. But if the text does not provide the details required then I can't do that, and that just takes part of the fun out of it.

Hmmm, that seems to be about all. I would love to say that a good novel need to strong themes, or to send a message, but it really doesn't. If it does then thats all well and good, but it isn't what makes it for me. Its a side thing, unimportant compared to the things listed above.