"All good books are different but all bad books are exactly the same."

[Eric Christopherson]

That's a quote (and literary allusion to the opening of Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, I think) from Robert Harris's "The Ghost." His protagonist, a ghost writer, goes on to say that the way in which all bad books are exactly the same is: "they don't ring true. I'm not saying that a good book is true necessarily, just that it feels true for the time you're reading it." What do you think?

FYI, I am really enjoying this political thriller. It's such a treat to discover a new suspense fiction author with sharp prose skills.

[Caroline Trippe]

Not only does a "good book" convince you that its characters are true to life and its plot plausible---it is well written; made "' unique" by the author's writing style.  There aren't too many of those.  I'm not sure that all bad books are alike---except in one sense: I usually  drop them after the first chapter, if not the first page.  Sometimes I'll get a little further along, or even finish one---maybe because there was enough plot action to pull me through. Or maybe I liked the setting.  But I'll likely  forget the author's name, or the title, almost at once.  Of course the majority of "bad" books aren't really so  much bad as they are "middling to poor."  You read them, but then say, "so what?"  

[Benjamin Sobieck]

Maybe "bad" isn't quite the right word then. "Forgettable" might be better.

It's never affected me much if someone said my stuff was bad. They could recall all the reasons they hated it. At least I made an impression.

Same goes with praise. I'd rather have someone say (in a nutshell), "I enjoyed it and will always remember reading it," as opposed to, "It was good."

[Jonathan Francesco]

I think a lot of stuff heralded as "brilliant" is very forgettable. I think something can be entire real and still be forgettable. I think creating something truly memorable is something we all strive for, but very few of us truly achieve it, IMO.

[Benjamin Sobieck]

I think it takes being very young or very old. You have some sort of perspective that's lost in your middle years, when you're busy with making a living.

Not that you can't write great stuff as a regular ol' adult. Just a thought I've had for a while.

[Caroline Trippe]

I think a lot of stuff heralded as "brilliant" is very forgettable.  

Awhile back there was an interesting discussion on book blurbs and how often they claim a book is brilliant Anyone can get someone to write a great blurb, or take a reviewer's quote out of context . Almost everything that gets published is heralded as "brilliant!" :)

[Jack Getze]

True is a funny word. I can't read a ghost, vampire, or zombie book because I don't believe in that stuff. It's not true. Feels stupid to be reading it. But millions of readers love that stuff. I guess because it FEELS true?

Are The Hobbits true to life? No. Are those fantasy plots plausible? Not to me. I think "good book" mean a whole lot of different things to different people.

[I. J. Parker]

I have the same problem with vampires.  The hobbits are a tad different, as are the Harry Potter books.  That's where you get into fairy tales and mythology, and I relate very well to those things.  The vampires are a 19th century invention with overtones of Victorian sexual perversions. That isn't really the same sort of fantasy.  Not unless sexual daydreams are the same as a temporary suspension of disbelief in order to imagine magic.  Yes, the line is fine, but it is significant.

[Caroline Trippe]

I can't read a ghost, vampire, or zombie book because I don't believe in that stuff. It's not true.

How do you know? :)  There's factual truth, (such as a police report)  and there's psychological truth. Ghost stories can be schlock, or a way of exploring a tormented mind.  Henry James wrote "psychological" ghost stories, and "Dracula" was not so much about vampires as about the insidiousness and  persistence of evil.  Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" is  in part about an individual's isolation in a society that cannot accept or forgive  difference.   Myth deals with how things come to be, and evolved from religion into literature.  Most fairy tales are rooted in domestic crises and the rituals of resolution, of the emancipation of the protagonist: they begin in the realm of the real , move through the realm of magic and supernatural back into the real world.  Truth may be found in metaphor.  "The Hobbit" and the other books in that series are based on epics---you might as well not read "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey,"  two of the great works of literature, because they are not "real."  If they "feel" true it's because of the beauty of the language and the detail (no abstraction there), and therefor, when you read them, you experience them.  Are Shakespeare's plays really believable?  It's not the plots but the characters, the psychological explorations, and of course, the language. 

[John McFetridge]

You're right, of course, but once you get past the very few books that use ghosts, vampires, zombies, etc., as metaphor there are just so many that accept those things as real and don't dig any deeper.

I just interviewed for a job as a writer on a new vampire show (because there can never be enough vampire shows) and the people making the show know more about the "rules of vampirism" and what "a vampire would really do," than they do about what a person would do.

[Caroline Trippe]

There are just so many that accept those things as real and don't dig any deeper.

Yep. You gotta separate the wheat from the chaff!   I'm just saying that ghosts, vampires, etc., CAN operate on a metaphorical level.  More often they're good for cheap thrills if you like that kind of thing.

I don't think that Bram Stoker thought he was going to start a trend when he wrote "Dracula." Or at least not the trend we're seeing now.  "Interview with the Vampire" was a ripping good story, but I've not read any of the others in the series, nor have I read "Twilight," nor do I watch any of the current TV series.

But this vampire cult is something else again. It's definitely escapist.  Perhaps it appeals to so many because these new-age  vampires are all young and beautiful, which strikes a chord with people who are terrified of aging; and since  vampires are pretty  hard to kill,  they're damn near  invincible, so it resonates with people who are not just afraid of death but maybe feel powerless in other ways.  Maybe that's pop psychology, and there are deeper reasons for vampire love .  Nosferatu, in the original film and also in the one by Werner Herzog, was as ugly as sin---who'd want a hickey from that dude!  Cultural historians, though, have a field day with this stuff. There was even a doctoral dissertation written, I believe, on "Buffy the Fearless Vampire Slayer." 

[I. J. Parker]

Take note that both "Frankenstein" and the Dracula story originated in the 19th century, not exactly the age of reason.  "Frankenstein" is the outgrowth of some fevered discussions between Byron, Shelley, and Mary Shelley.  Mary Shelley was infected by the sort of nuttiness that the two men spouted and eager to prove herself equal to them.  She dashed the novel off in a day or so.  Byron drifted away from the myth-making (he was a satirist at heart), but Shelley explored a number of fascinating allegories of the human mind and the creative spirit.  For him, it works pretty well, because the symbols are well chosen (they are archetypes)  and the poetry is terrific.  The same cannot be said for "Frankenstein."

As for Bram Stoker:  the fact that you can make women shudder doesn't prove that you have plumbed the depths of mythmaking.  I don't believe that the vampire thing is escapist.  It's sexual fantasy.

Tolkien and  Harry Potter are escapist.  They create a separate world. 

[Caroline Trippe]

not exactly the age of reason.

Not exactly!  Thanks for the historical background, Ingrid.

You're right that vampire lore is sexual fantasy---the kind that springs from repression-- (you don't even have to take your clothes off  and it isn't dirty---Woody Allen said in Annie Hall, "If it's not dirty you're not doing it right" :) 

I was thinking of the dreamy aspect of vampire stories, which to my way of thinking, is escapist.  Tolkien and Harry Potter do create separate worlds, that I would not argue.  Whereas a vampire is an otherworldly "invader."  (Sexual desire in a scary form).  Is it only women who shudder, then?  :)