Dude. No.
We have many members here who've self-published their books, and for their own reasons. You're getting damned close to crossing the RYFW line.
How can you tell a novel is good?
- Thread starter Mykall
- Start date
- Status
Dude. No.
We have many members here who've self-published their books, and for their own reasons. You're getting damned close to crossing the RYFW line.
In addition to Kelly's point that a wide variety of people self-publish for a wide variety of reasons, when looking at the context of what is "good" it is also necessary to understand that in many ways, such an evaluation is subjective. Yes, there are objective criteria that can be applied but it is also subjective.
Are we looking at commercial viability? If so, then yes, whether or not it is accepted by an agent and a commercial publisher is an indication of what is good and what is not.
If we're looking at whether the manuscript (and I'm limiting this comment strictly to fiction) brought pleasure to someone other than the writer, then we're looking at a whole different set of criteria. After all, the stories that I enjoy are not the same stories that my mother and brother enjoy. Does one of us read books that are better than the others? No. We just find different things entertaining.
Are we looking at commercial viability? If so, then yes, whether or not it is accepted by an agent and a commercial publisher is an indication of what is good and what is not.
If we're looking at whether the manuscript (and I'm limiting this comment strictly to fiction) brought pleasure to someone other than the writer, then we're looking at a whole different set of criteria. After all, the stories that I enjoy are not the same stories that my mother and brother enjoy. Does one of us read books that are better than the others? No. We just find different things entertaining.
Right, except a complete manuscript is still needed. Not "any imbecile" can accomplish that.
As for what constitute a good novel. It is both subjective and universal. Like emotion, we all share joy and sadness, but our perspective of it still differ in some way. Where do we draw the line when someone is happy with a story we hate? Or cry over something we laugh about.
A good novel? One that's not a waste of time to the individual reader.
How can you tell? Read the blurb. If it interest you, dive in and give it a shot.
Last edited:
I did not say that every self-published book was written by an imbecile. But the huge problem with self-publication is that way too many self-published things are, precisely because anybody can manage that. And writing a manuscript long enough to qualify as a "novel" isn't really much of a problem.
Writing one good enough to interest an agent and standard publisher most certainly is. I've never managed it, and I thoroughly admire anyone who has, regardless of genre. They've done more than I can, and their books are better than my unpublishable manuscripts. Or anyone else's.
caw
Except you didn't make that clear enough.
But it's still an accomplishment. No?
That depends if the agents like apple or oranges.
That also depends. I've read a few unpublished work that's actually better than some published ones. Just because someone didn't like the apple doesn't make it a bad apple. A work that can't get publish is just a work unwanted at the time, by specific party. It doesn't mean it's a bad work.
It doesn't mean it's a good work either, but that's up for debate.
FWIW, a great many can. I get both sides of the argument, there certainly are some good books self-pubbed, but the mere act of drumming up 80K words worth of coherent sentences isn't in itself what I'd consider an automatic accomplishment.
True. But it's still an accomplishment in its own right. Not everyone can do that. Some would quit halfway. Yes?
depends how you wish to define "accomplishment". Some people quit their first day on the slopes, or after their first dance class, but I don't consider the ability to snowplow your skis down an entire hill, or do a semi-competent box step, to be an accomplishment, nor do I automatically consider finishing a book one. A decent book, perhaps, but I don't give out ribbons for participation; they don't help anyone.
I define it the way the word is define.
Accomplishment:
Something that has been achieved successfully.
The successful achievement of a task.
If a writer set out to write a novel and manage to finish it, then they have achieved their goal. They complete the task they set out to do.
Which leads to the second step, whether they want publish it, that's another stage of accomplishment if they succeed. And if their novel hit it big in the market, that's another success.
I see accomplishment as several levels.
i guess we're gonna define it differently, as I do not consider a successful bowel movement, for someone in normal health, to be an accomplishment, for example...and nor do I consider stringing words. Doing so WELL, but not just by quantity. Not just by completing any task, just FOR completing it.
Last edited:
If you're gonna compare a completed novel with a successful bowel movement for a normal person, then it seems to me that you see a completed novel as a normal thing to a normal writer. To me it's a special thing. The fact that someone can finish a novel alone is something.
As for those who have finished it, whether the novel is good or not that's up for debate, but to say it's just another completed work and no big deal, that's ignoring their hard work. If someone can finish a novel with their eyes close, that doesn't mean those who finish it with their eyes open are any less special. They finish their work. Mission accomplished.
If their completed manuscript is 80k of random words, that's a different story. I am referring to those who actually completed a real story.
we're gonna have to agree to disagree...I believe quality matters. I've seen plenty of sections from self-pub books, fanfic, etc. that I would not consider an accomplishment, even at 180K words....
Just because you see plenty of bad self-pub books and fanfic, etc, it doesn't mean all written work without success are bad. If accomplishment means to be king of the world, then I rather not have that...I also believe quality matter, but quality is subjective.
But I agree with you that we're gonna have to agree to disagree.
Running a kilometer can be a genuine achievement for a person who is out-of-shape and has never ran before. Is it an exceptional achievement? No.
Yeah, but considering self-publication by itself an achievement of any kind is like considering limboing under a football goalpost an achievement. You might be fabulously flexible, but even I can do that. Hell, John Goodman could do that.
If you self-publish something, AND get good responses (notably in the form of sales), that's great and to be applauded. Once in a while this happens, and, yes, it happened to Shades of Grey. Which made lots of news precisely because it is such an exceptional self-publication success story.
In contrast, if you self-publish something that has failed to generate the interest of 50, 60, 100 standard agents you've queried or submitted to, what exactly does that say about the thing you self-published? That isn't exactly the story behind the success of Shades of Grey anyway, as I understand it.
caw
You may not say those, but you seem to imply it.
So if you set out to get something done and you can't, and give up, that means you fail. But if you get it done, you still didn't accomplish anything?
By your view on accomplishment, it seems you have to go more than just finishing a work to meet accomplishment...
Achievement is set by what you set out to do. But I was speaking of 'Accomplishment'. To finish a manuscript is an accomplishment by definition.
To say otherwise is just twisting the definition. Or taking the word to a certain extreme.
Well, if Placido Domingo developed his classic operatic tenor singing to the level he did, but only did so in the shower, never heard by anyone else, is that an "accomplishment"? At least, an accompishment worth celebrating? How many Placido Domingos are out there, undiscovered, singing in their showers?
Just "finishing a work" isn't sufficient. I've finished many, which have never got before the eyes of a reading audience.. I don't consider that an "accomplishment". I should self-publish those failures?
caw
Last edited:
yes; by my view you have to do it to some reasonable standard. "doing" doesn't equate it automatically being an accomplishment. I sat down to write this; let my knees loosen and gravity have its way with me--I set out to sit, it was intentional, and I managed to do it, but I wouldn't call it an "accomplishment" because my goal of sitting was accomplished. There's some nuance to definition, and i don't think most people define "accomplishment" as finishing, no matter how trivial the action.
If you set out to climb everest and succeeded, you accomplished something, because it was a unique endeavor. If you set out to sit down, successfully sitting is not an "accomplishment"....not in any way I define the word. And simply finishing a novel, regardless of content, is not automatically an accomplishment....not for me.
An accomplishment is 'Something that has been achieved successfully'. If the individual set out to do something and complete it, whether they be successful to the eyes of others or not, as long as they feel content with themselves, is that not in their own right a form of success and accomplishment?
I've made a movie that the world has no clue about. I set out to get it done and I did to the fullest of my ability. I was happy with it, and I feel successful to get it done even though others say I cannot do it.
I did what they say I couldn't. Is that not an accomplishment?
But I'm not talking about "doing". I'm talking about completing. In this case a novel.
I'm just using the word as it is define in the dictionary.
-The act of accomplishing or the state of being accomplished; completion.
-Something completed successfully; an achievement.
-the act of carrying out or achieving-something achieved or successfully completed
Sounds like accomplishment is related to "finishing" to me.
Except sitting down don't equal writing/completing a novel.
We are back to square one.
For me, to accomplish something is to complete a task and be happy with it. With or without others approval. A success to the mind is still a success. Just not one shared by everyone else. Yet still an accomplishment in its own right.
As I said before, I see many levels of accomplishment. Completing a novel is an endeavor not everyone can accomplish.
Last edited:
IMO, what you're describing is self-satisfaction, not necessarily success. The title of the thread is "How can you tell a novel is good?" The OP asked how to tell if the magic is there and it isn't just "words on the page". I think that's what quicklime and blacbird have been trying to get across to you. That there is a difference between being satisfied with something in your own mind and it being tossed out in the world and deemed successful. In the first instance, you are the judge. In the second instance, the readers are.
Yet it fits with the definition of success in its own form.
-The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted
I have answered to the OP with my first post.
As for the rest, I was only trying to get across that not everyone who set out to write a novel can complete it. Those who did can say they accomplish the goal they set out. So in a way it is an accomplishment. That's all I was trying to get at.
Last edited:
Good is such an underwhelming word anyway. There are far better descriptors to apply to a book and it's author. 'Amazing' and 'brilliant respectively come to mind.
Basically, if writing the book makes you feel like Matt Smith's Doctor off on another adventure through time and space, you're on the right track, I think. If you're Jon Pertwee's Doctor stuck in the sixties then, well you're in colour but you're not going anywhere fast.
Basically, if writing the book makes you feel like Matt Smith's Doctor off on another adventure through time and space, you're on the right track, I think. If you're Jon Pertwee's Doctor stuck in the sixties then, well you're in colour but you're not going anywhere fast.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2009
- Messages
- 6,004
- Reaction score
- 1,233
Personally, I think it's a mistake to judge one's own progress towards personal goals, and the success of completion or lack thereof, against the wider community definition of accomplished as being even remotely similar.
There are personal goals that once attaining them can be a success. For the individual, it can be quite the feat to do something and the feeling of accomplishment is heady. As it's personal and unique to the individual, it carries a degree of success and accomplishment. We have our own private milestones and goalposts that we gauge our success or failure on.
The moment we pull that out and try to compare it to the larger, societal definition of success, we run into problems because, as illustrated thus far, each individual has a definition of what makes something an accomplishment or a success. No one can agree on the goalposts and milestones that define it and therefore we get into pointless, reductive disagreements on what makes something a success.
There are personal goals that once attaining them can be a success. For the individual, it can be quite the feat to do something and the feeling of accomplishment is heady. As it's personal and unique to the individual, it carries a degree of success and accomplishment. We have our own private milestones and goalposts that we gauge our success or failure on.
The moment we pull that out and try to compare it to the larger, societal definition of success, we run into problems because, as illustrated thus far, each individual has a definition of what makes something an accomplishment or a success. No one can agree on the goalposts and milestones that define it and therefore we get into pointless, reductive disagreements on what makes something a success.
- Status