Characteristics of a Good Fiction Book

Hello Friend, this time I’m going to write a post on what, in my opinion, constitutes a good fiction book. I’d just been idly thinking about this topic a few days back, since I’ve noticed that a lot of people don’t really know what a good book should contain—in other words, if they’re asked what makes a particular book [say, for example, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory] “good” or “readable”, they don’t have a concrete answer—they just think it’s enjoyable. I feel that every book has that “something”, some selling point, that makes it worth your time and enjoyable; it’s different for every book, of course, but there are a few common characteristics which every good book should contain; at the very least, that’s how I determine how good a book is. I’m a very picky reader, and I don’t praise books highly until I have a very good reason to do so; so why are there so many books that I love so much? That’s because they have everything that’s required—and expected—of a great book. I don’t claim to be a professional critic or anything of the sort [I’m still just a student. I’m writing this post cause I gobble up books faster than I finish my meals, and I just thought it would be fun to write something about why I enjoy reading so much). Books have opened up a whole new world of endless possibilities to me; I can completely lose myself in this world and mingle with the characters and actually see the events unfolding before my eyes… at such times, I feel that I have no earthly worries. I’ve literally felt every possible human emotion while reading certain books—happiness, sadness, angst, love [to some extent, even hatred]; I have laughed and cried with the characters [especially in The Call of the Wild. That’s such an emotionally intense book, and it shows that animals are the most faithful companions a human can hope for; but their natural habitat is the wild, and they cannot ignore their instincts. They must return to the wild, where they reign undisputed.] So please take a look at what I’m going to elaborate on: the Characteristics of a Good Fiction Book.

Fiction as a genre is very vast and expansive, right? Within this genre, there have been so many aspects that have been explored over the ages; so many diverse books have been written.  I’ll read any kind of book, but my personal favourites are fantasy, historical and mythological fiction, supernatural and occult, and dystopian fiction. I’ve always thought a lot about anti-heroes and antagonists, who are often more interesting than the protagonist; often it’s not the protag who’s my favourite character, but the one who vehemently opposes him/her, for the simple reason that that person’s motivations are more complex.

Strong, well fleshed-out characters are very important if you want your book/s to be successful. Characters are the ones who drive the plot, right? It wouldn’t be possible for the book to move forward without someone [other than the author] at the helm. It’s not necessary for the book to have “good” characters—if they’re humans, they don’t need to act like angels; but they need to be interesting. Their motivations, their dreams, their weaknesses, their strengths, their hopes, their fears—these have to be thought of beforehand. One must pay attention to all their characters, of course, but specific care should be given to the protagonists and the antagonist/s, if any [and I feel there should be an antagonist; the presence of an unconventional antagonist increases the book’s value.]  Protagonists don’t have to be easily readable either—it’s nice to see a multi-faceted, unpredictable main character; figuring them out is fun, as it’s challenging. They don’t have to be so unreadable that the reader can’t figure them out at all—no one will want to read something like that. Seeing the author gradually “unravelling” them as the book goes on is also really great—you know very little about the protag at the beginning, but by the climax, you know everything the author wanted you to. I think that Russian folktales have the most well-developed characters—they’re always very grey, there’s hardly any sugar-coating. After all, no human is completely black or white—we’re either toward the lighter side or the darker one. They’re also pretty feminist; I haven’t come across many damsels-in-distress [Marya Morevna, the infamous warrior queen, is a woman I look up to tremendously; I’m also very fond of Baba Yaga, the witch-grandmother who appears in almost every Russian story, and Ivan, the lazy fool with a massive saviour complex. Unlike typical heroes, Ivan listens to his heart more often than he listens to his mind, and he manages to escape cause he’s really intuitive and really, really lucky. So…yeah, that’s why I have a soft spot for Russian folktales!]  Another book with excellent characters is Wuthering Heights [do I even need to say that…?].  I never found Catherine Earnshaw or Heathcliff particularly relatable [I really abhor obsession of any sort], but they are undeniably well crafted; they’re among the greatest characters invented by mankind [this may seem like a bit of an exaggeration, but it’s true.] Both of them are so strong-willed, and they complement each other incredibly well, adding to the general disharmony and chaos seen throughout the book. I think contrasting characters contribute greatly to the success of a book; Edgar Linton and Heathcliff, Isabella Linton and Catherine—Bronte created the Lintons as literary foils to the wild, unrestrained and rough protagonists [though the Lintons aren’t just foils. They’re very important in their own right.]

A good, strong plot is one of the major components of an effective book. No matter what genre it is, every book needs to keep going, right? If it’s a weak plot that peters out at the climax without wrapping anything up properly, no one will be willing to read it. It’s not always necessary to wrap everything up, because some authors prefer “open endings”—ambiguous endings. I really like this technique myself, more so than “closed endings”; Gone with the Wind is an excellent example of an open ending. We know that Scarlett O’Hara, having lost her husband, Rhett, is determined to win him back somehow; we don’t know what she’s gonna do to accomplish this objective, though, because the book ends when she says “tomorrow is another day”.  Therefore, the ending is largely open for interpretation by the reader. It’s become quite a common technique lately, and psychological thrillers [I love psychological thrillers, especially The Girl on the Train] use open endings almost all the time. Closed endings are required, of course, every book can’t have an open ending, that would be unprofessional. Authors of historical fiction often use open endings, too. You see, I don’t have a firm definition of a good plot as such; I think it depends on the genre. What I do know is that it should be neither too fast, nor too slow. You don’t want to read that you can’t get the hang of, right? And a super-slow book will only make you fall asleep! I like fast-paced plots, but I should be able to understand what’s going on. The Scarlet Pimpernel and Battle Royale are probably the best examples of this [read them and you’ll see what I’m saying.]

I forgot to mention this earlier [sorry!] so I’ll say it now—a catchy title is vital. If the title is intriguing, you’d automatically want to take a peek at what’s inside, right? And if the book is good, you end up sitting through it without even realising it. “Wuthering Heights”, “The Scarlet Pimpernel”, “Never Let Me Go”, “The Death of Koschei the Deathless”, “Treasure Island”, “The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde”—all of these are incredible titles, right? Don’t you feel like reading them at least once? …All right, let’s move on…

The style of narration.  I really like first-person narration; first-person narration manages to beak the fourth wall easily, like in Never Let Me Go; besides, I think that the readers automatically feel more connected and comfortable when it’s a first-person narration. [I certainly do.] First-person narration also allows the reader a deeper insight into the narrator’s thoughts and innermost feelings. I know that first-person narration has limitations—one can only narrate what one saw; third-person narration does not have this limitation, but in third-person narration, it’s not that personalised, and you don’t have that much access to the narrator’s personal feelings. Third person narration is more about the narrator’s observations, while first-person narration is way more personalised.

That’s all for now. See you next time!

Thank you! I hope you liked my article!