Form vs. Content- What Makes a "Good" Book?
When approaching literary criticism should our evaluation be rooted in form, content or a combination of both? Upon surveying user-generated online reviews –through platforms such as Goodreads–it is easy to see a favouring of content>form in the evaluation of (especially contemporary) fictional works. However, a satisfying or politically correct plot does not necessarily constitute a book's literary value, as has been proven in the body of literature that has developed and grown into the present canon of classics. Does a focus on content and its potentially overbearing concern with happy-endings, chronological order or likeable protagonists cloud our judgement of what makes a "good" book? And even more interestingly, can a book be judged to be "good" at all, and if so, by who?