An Easy Way to Tell If Your Book is “Good Enough”
“Good” isn’t a very good word to use when discussing
art. It means different things to different people, and the word coming from
the same pair of lips can evolve depending on the context. While I’d be the
first to say that if you’re questioning whether or not your book is good
enough, you should trust your instincts telling you that it can be better, but
a more effective means actually might be just defining what “good” could
possibly mean.
Is this
intellectually stimulating?
(Does it
make you think?)
A good book will activate your brain and make
you curious, learn, or engage in some form of puzzle solving. Every scene—and to
some extent even line—should teach you something new. But that doesn't mean it has to be calculus or the meaning of life. Maybe it's just that, "Oh, there ARE cows in this world!" Maybe it's, "Man, he's an asshole when he's stressed!" It might be grandiose, causing
you to question the greater philosophy in life, or it might be factual,
literally giving you interesting trivia about sharks, or it might just be related to the story, changing your perception on what you thought about who and what you were seeing.
Intellectually stimulating isn’t confined to rich
literary books, the mystery genre thrives on causing a reader to speculate, question,
seek out information, and try to find answers before the characters do.
If you’re questioning whether or not a scene is
“necessary” or if your book is interesting, ask yourself if the reader is
learning anything, has their sense of curiosity stimulated, or is asking
questions. If not, it might be that you’re not giving enough new material or prodding enough of their unknowns. Go back through and make sure the “point”
of each scene adds new info—even if that just answers a question the reader might be wondering. Most importantly, give your reader a heads up that they don’t know
something important. Don’t try to keep everything a surprise until the end.
Give out plot points over the course of the book and make it very clear when
there is a question that has of yet to be answered instead of just springing it
on them. (And if you do have a twist you want no one to guess, make sure there
are plenty of other questions being asked and answered before then.)
Is this emotionally
stimulating?
(Does it
make you feel?)
Alright, makes sense. But what about those genres
that completely lack nuance or surprise? The formulaic romance novels that some
people gulp down like a dog who hasn’t had food for a whole five minutes?
Well, a book doesn’t always have to raise questions
or wonder. Quite frankly, predictable books usually do far better than ones
that leave too much to the imagination (re: don’t tell you what they’re about until
three pages until the end for fear of spoiling it). That’s because books are a
means for people to feel things when life isn’t getting them what they need. We
live vicariously through the characters in order to love, laugh, and win when we lack that sort of excitement in the real world. We want the catharsis of crying and the jolt of fear.
Life teaches us to protect ourselves from these
emotions though, so it’s not uncommon for new writers to attempt to save
characters from conflict and other intense feelings by making everyone friendly,
things go pretty well, and just write sort of a dull story about someone who is
navigating their world decently. Realistic usually, but that’s often the
problem. If we wanted to experience a world lacking drama or mood swings, we’d
just go back to our day jobs.
The most common reasons that a book isn’t activating
people’s emotions is that...
1) It needs to be pushed farther. Scarier, funnier, happier,
angrier, more erotic. Usually the idea is there, but the writer didn’t take it as far as he could. Most books just need "more" in their scenes. Have the characters push each other's buttons, say the wrong things, do something stupid.
2) There’s not enough variety. Playing a mood can kill a book, and
if you look at most story formulas, they often suggest high contrast. Failure,
failure, success. Drama, drama, humor. Loneliness, loneliness, wanted. Polar emotions
can intensify each other, so it’s a good idea to make sure your scene of two
characters fighting has some agreement
and, yes, even bonding, as well as that no scene exists solely to explain. If the scene is really about explaining how the magic of the world works, make the explainer patronizing and the listener pissed off. Emotions are contagious.
After you’ve written something and you're wondering if it goes far enough, ask yourself
what the reader should be feeling at multiple points, especially towards the
end. It’s not a big deal if some scenes are intellectually founded without a
great deal of emotion, but you’ll notice quickly if the emotional aspects are
pretty muted throughout.
If a
scene doesn’t keep the reader either intellectually or emotionally activated,
that scene is boring.
Or, at the very least, not meeting its full potential.
Don’t overwhelm the audience with constant new information or worry that not
every scene is a tear-jerker. They’re not supposed to be. Sometimes the feeling
of reprieve is extremely valuable, and you want different degrees and types of reactions. However,
when people feel like something is missing, that maybe their work doesn’t have
that magic, thinking logically about the intended impact (to our brains or our hearts) can better answer if it's your insecurity or your brain talking.
If you liked this post, want to support, contact, stalk, or argue with me, please consider...
Liking Charley Daveler on Facebook
Following What's Worse than Was
