Quote:
Originally Posted by shalym
No, I wouldn't accept that there's such a thing as a "bad book"--at least in the sense that *everyone* considers it a "bad book". Of course, there are books that I consider "bad books" that you and others consider "good books", just like there are books that I consider "good books" that you and others consider to be "bad books".
What I am saying is there is no such thing as a universal judgement of value...that's why the word "judgement" is in there. As long as one person disagrees with the opinion (note that "opinion" also connotes subjectivity) then it can not be universal.
Shari
|
Oh, I dunno. I've seen some things, in my travels, particularly around the KDP, that I think are pretty universally considered "bad books," except, perhaps, by the person who wrote it. There are some things that are flat-out unreadable. If a book is literally incoherent, how can anyone disagree that it's a bad book?
A book, if naught else,
MUST be readable; it has to be able to convey its ideas, its characters, its plot or theme or whatever to an average reader (for its target market). If it is unable to do that, due to the exceedingly poor quality of the writing, I don't think that it can be, by anyone's lights, a "good" book. It fails by definition, on the face of the thing.
Juz sayin'.
Hitch