I dunno about that. Ender's Game goes all kinds of dark, dark places. I doubt it would be classified as YA unless the guy doing it never actually read the books.

OT:
The specifics of what a work of fiction is trying to do, I've largely found to be mostly irrelevant. Big, sprawling epics are just as good as tightly focused stories. Protagonist groups are just as good as a solo protagonist. Etc, etc. I've read and enjoyed books or other works that run the gamut of genre, convention and storytelling. The subject matter and how it's portrayed I, ultimately, find to be window-dressing.

The one thing I've found to be consistent between good stories is theme, subtext, the ideas and philosophies the writer conveys through their chosen text. The good stuff presents different perspectives, new ideas, or even old ideas in a different light. It makes the reader think.

It doesn't need to be particularly deep or meaningful (or even intentionally included) ideas either; it could be something as simple as a what if. As long as the reader is made to think about it and what it means to their own lives.

Every good work of fiction I have ever read has shown me at least one thing I'd never have thought about otherwise. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't, but either way, it makes me think about it.

And now that the quasi-pretentious literary geek spiel is out of the way, there is one aspect of storytelling that I have, thus far, universally not enjoyed. Specifically, the tendency of so many big fantasy works nowadays to try and tell a dozen different stories at once. Wheel of Time and Song of Ice and Fire are the worst offenders, but there are plenty of others out there.

Without fail, I always only enjoy 1-3 of the stories being told and couldn't possibly care less for the rest. It really bogs down the story and makes it painful to read. A book should tell one, unified story, not half a dozen separate ones spread out over disparate chapters.

That's not to say that particular style can't be done well (as I do truly believe it could), but I haven't yet seen it.

 

The first thing, which is absolutely important for me, is likable characters. Likable characters make or break the story for me. You can have the most extensive, super awesome fantasy world, with a rich magic system, blah blah, but I want to read about people. I didn't really like ASOIF because of preciously this reason. The politics of the world doesn't interest me in and of itself, unless it's directly tied into the fate of a character I actually care about. Which is why Wheel of Time did such a great job, and GoT failed for me.

Worldbuilding is an important part, but I could live without it, if the story is compelling. It's pretty much like Billdoor said - you just have to make me crave for that one more chapter (this doesn't really mean leave every chapter at a cliffhanger!). If you have to have a huge epic world, with a unique magic system, don't throw it at me all at once. I like discovering things, theorizing about possible explanations etc. Worm does an amazing job at this.

That's pretty much it. I'll read anything as long as I care about the characters. The epicness, politics, philosophy, etc are just extras that make the story more fun.

About what Agayek said, yeah, multiple stories, character POVs can get annoying, but they can be handled well. Sanderson's The Way of Kings does a great job at it, because he limited himself to telling the story from 3 different POVs. 3 is a good number.

 

I like my characters to make sense with what a real person would be like, assuming they are, of course, human. I can't stand when I read stories about damn twelve year olds who are suddenly not only smarter, but savvier than fully grown people. No matter how well hand-waved it is, I just can't stand it. I'm willing to give a certain leeway towards stories that include non-human characters, as you could just make up whatever the hell you wanted about their developmental rates.

I prefer my cynics to be cynics, and my idealists to be idealists. Unless it's done by character development, I hope the author sticks to the characterization they did earlier. This is something I really like about Jim Butcher, in that if his characters change, it was for a damn good reason.

I prefer fantasy that still makes nice to the laws of physics, like Sympathy in The Name of the Wind. There are only so many breaks from reality I'm willing to accept without batting an eye, and a magic system that only ends up postulating one is pretty good in my book.

I really enjoy philosophy in books. Even if the author just makes up something to be the moral code of a single character, I love exploring the differing viewpoints on existence. When you have a bitter jaded shell of a man partnered with an idealistic optimist, that be some good character interaction right there.

This is less of a consideration, but I like my humor as dry as the Sahara. Any of you who are interested, check out Johannes Cabal the Necromancer. The sarcasm is palpable.

 

All good things.

Yeah I'm a fan of not jumping characters often, if at all. I get invested in one and rarely want to pop into the head of thirteen others. Not to say it can't work, but I usually end up wanting to jump back to my preferred character ASAP.

This is being rather helpful. Let's have some more.

 

The only thing I think I would add is the books that stick with me the longest, the ones I would consider of the highest quality, are the ones that ask Big Questions.

Doesn't have to be a big philosophical debate, doesn't have to go into the meaning of life or anything, but asking unanswerable questions - and then giving a possible answer - is a sure fire way to suck readers in. We read books and watch movies and TV to escape a bit, but also to see people - characters - do what we cannot do ourselves, to watch them make the decisions and ask the questions we cannot find answers to in our own lives.

Examples are difficult, but...

Look at the Dark Tower. Mid World is a strange and fascinating place, yes, but it's the character of Roland that draws us in. We know he's a noble, fastidious, murderous, kind, cruel man. Finding out what made him that way, what allows him to exist in that perpetual state of dichotomy, is a mystery, and seeing what it allows him to do, the choices it allows him to make, is what makes him such a compelling character.

In the Dresden Files, most of the questions asked are about power, and what limits and codes a person has to impose upon themselves to protect not just others, but themselves. As much fun as it is watching Harry blow things up, it's infinitely more interesting dealing with the question of how can a person with the power of a wizard not use that power? What strength of character must a person have? And what happens when they don't?

Time travel stories are the height of this Question asking: if you had the power to change anything - ANYTHING! - would you have the willpower not to?

Of course, stories get boring if people always answer these challenges in the 'right' way - the fun and interest in a story is when the characters make the wrong decisions, and try to put things right, hopefully learning a valuable lesson along the way.

tl;dr: ask Big Questions, then give us the wrong answers.

 

Have you read Lies of Locke Lamora? Edit: meant to send this to Howdy, as I thought his description of what he enjoys described the Locke Lamora books very closely, but I'm on my phone and screwed it up...

 

For me, everything stems from the main character, and his/her/its interaction with others (assuming of course that the writing is of a good standard). I hate it when a story has more than 2 main characters, and usually I prefer for there to just be one (this is why I just cannot bear Sanderson). A good main character makes or breaks a story, it's as simple as that. The questions asked in a story don't resonate unless you give a fuck about the characters, and that all comes from the main one. Just look back across literary history; almost every novel you love will have a main character you loved in some way. And, the only thing that will really piss you off about a book so much that you can no longer stand it is the author fucking up with the main character. Case in point: Harry Potter.

If you want your story to be iconic, the first and most important step is to make an iconic main character. From there, it could be a story about a guy with simple, everyday life concerns or a girl who goes from bully victim to supervillain extraordinaire - as long as the reader fully engages with the main character and the resulting character interaction, they'll love it.

 

Tesla: Something I've noticed is that some novels can work with a horrible and hated main character, as long as there's an important character people can love. Hell, would Batman be that interesting without the Joker? Not that I'm saying Batman is a weak main character, but I think you get my point.

As long as there's someone I can point to and say, "I want dat guy to win. Or at least say more cool things." I'm cool with a novel.

 

I absolutely hate "Abrahamic" beliefs in my stories no matter what genre. I just can´t stand it. Strangely I have no problems with other, imagined or real, religions and even think that simple belief is one of the more interesting ideas for a good plot.
And no I don´t have such a problem with them in RL.

And I think much depends on what genre/sort of story you want to write. There is a massive difference between epic fantasy sprawling entire worlds and some good old fashioned Sword and Sorcery fantasy focusing on a small group. Or SciFi with its page long technobabble and pro military approach. You have to find the right recipe for each of them and I don´t belief they have much in common.

Edit: Sorry for my mistake..I hope this is better.

 

Those damn yews.

 

Yews are fine. I'm thinking of goin' all holocaust on those dirty elms, though. Who's in?

 

You've got it all wrong Matt, we need to exterminate the Maples. They've been far too uppity for far too long.

 

Personally, I think we should just kill the Jews.

Don't have any problems with trees.

 

For me likeable characters are what draw me into a lot of stories. For example, to this day no matter how much I try I still can't read Renegade's cause because Harry in that story is extremely unlikeable for me. The only reason I stomached reading through Cercei Lannister's parts in the books was because I thought I would miss something important to the general story if I didn't( I guess then that a really interesting story makes up for unlikeable characters)

Now one of the things I've always wanted to see in fiction(usually fantasy) is a character who achieves things on his own merits. What I mean is that, I want to read about a character who is the first to do things, not, just like your father,uncle, grandfather,mother,brother scenarios. Basically what am saying is whether talent is inherited or not(is it?) I would like the protagonist to be the first one who exploits that potential(am I making sense?)

Its Harry practicing Quidditch and striving to be good at it that makes him good at it not because his father was also good at it.

 

The word to describe all of those religions, is 'Abrahamic'. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are Abrahamic because they all claim lineage from Abraham.

 

Tch. Tree-hugger.

 

I guess for me, it's imagery. You can have all the witty/world-jaded mannerisms and world building that you want, but if it isn't conveyed in the right imagery, I have absolutely no interest in reading it.

It's why a lot of the fantasy stories I've tried to read in the past fall flat and why I gravitate more toward more "modern" stories. Authors who get grounded in the thick of things write easily processible stuff; they spend several sentences describing the most mundane of things in a way that helps you not only get the tone of the work, but what the fuck is going on. I don't know how many stories I've read where I've but the faintest clue what the protagonist's face looks like. Some people might think that kind of detail is irrelevant, and I agree it can be challenging sometimes, but without (excessive?) detail, world building does nothing for me.

I'm not talking about purple prose, either. I don't need embellishments. People don't have "orbs" for eyes (a common way to refer to them); an orb on its own means nothing to me. But people might have orbs for butts, if we really want to emphasize their sexual appeal. The moon might be an orb, or maybe a perfectly round apple. But eyes, orbs...? It doesn't mean much to me. I get they're "the window to the soul" or some nonsense, but eyes are expressive; orbs are not. Orbs are... at least to me, round and vague. Maybe that kind of thing is a personal thing, but good imagery for me avoids cliches, but doesn't outright kick them to the curb. I guess unusual words is what's important, turning common ideas and images on their heads. Does a character smile? Or do their lips do something unique or extraordinary? There's only so much you can visualize, of a strange protagonist's smile, but if they do something rather odd, exacting and special, it's easy to imagine what it looks like.

 

Hm, maybe you're right.