[macintologist]

I have recently thought of a theory, that when tested, has held up in anecdotally testing.

I define a "good book" as a book which adds to the collective knowledge of human civilization by evoking discussion and or scholarship and thus carves a path for future derivative works. This applies to all works from popular fiction to specialized academic scholarship.

A good book will emphasize the title over the author.

A bad book will emphasize the author over the title.

Here are two examples:

Bad book:


Some good books:



Next time you're in the book store or surfing Amazon, test it for yourself to see if my theory holds up. On my personal collection it has every single time.

[Chuckit]

Failure:


I just ordered this:

So hopefully it's wrong there too…

EDIT: I like that they returned to the random-spaceship cover art theme from the first three Ender books.

[ort888]

The best way to judge a book is by how many ass kicking movies it's been turned into.

[andi*pandi]

name size means fame. what will sell? name or title?

[lyanma]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

name size means fame. what will sell? name or title?

I think that depend. If the story is good and well-known then the title will sell, now if it's something new from a known author then the name will sell. I've always judged a book from how creative the author made the title according to the story that has been written (from what the "summary" on the back of the book says). That always work.

[Jawbone54]

Just because a book is written by and marketed heavily as being written by a prominent author does not make it bad. Likewise, just because the author is someone you've never heard of does not make it a good book.

I say the old phrase will always apply. Don't take it away from me, otherwise I'm going to have to find another tired old phrase.

[Railroader]

Failure (theory)! Book (awesome)! :

[macintologist]

Does anyone disagree with my definition of a good book? Because the two examples above are definitely not good books.

[Railroader]

I disagree with you OPINION of what makes a "good book".

In my OPINION, the book I posted is one of the best.

[Railroader]

Going by your weird (my opinion) "definition" of a "good book", I guess this would prove your "theory":

[RAILhead]

Whoa -- a new Ender book?!

[SpaceMonkey]

Fail:

[cjrivera]

Even more worse fail:

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by cjrivera 

Even more worse fail:

No, that seems to follow his rule. I mean, the title and author are the same size, but the author is at least at the top.

Unless you mean you think that is a good book?

[cjrivera]

Author over title.
I think the 2 lines of author is still bigger than the 1 line title.
Plus, it's scientology, so extra fail points.

[macintologist]

My theory has held up in every single example presented in this thread. Just because something is a trashy pop fiction "bestseller" doesn't mean that it "adds to the collective knowledge of human civilization by evoking discussion and or scholarship and thus carves a path for future derivative works." (Macintologist 2009)

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

My theory has held up in every single example presented in this thread. Just because something is a trashy pop fiction "bestseller" doesn't mean that it "adds to the collective knowledge of human civilization by evoking discussion and or scholarship and thus carves a path for future derivative works." (Macintologist 2009)

And my example? It emphasizes the title over the author, but is not "good."

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Going by your weird (my opinion) "definition" of a "good book", I guess this would prove your "theory":

Your post needs more "quotes".

[angelmb]

Here you have 100 notable books of 2008 that may corroborate your theory.

[Chongo]

How about these ones?

[- - e r i k - -]

Yeah, Chongo pretty much shut down your theory right there.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

"Your" "post" "needs" "more" "quotes".

I was trying to use words incorrectly like he did. But I wanted to quote him so people didn't think I didn't know the correct usage.

Is that understandable?