The question about whether it is form or content that makes a good book piqued my interest. Personally, I’d rather engage in something that is interesting, and not worry about how ‘good’ the form is, although good form is enjoyable and respectable in it’s own way.

Particularly what made me think this way was a reading that I did for the Authorship and Narrative unit. It was a critic by Kael on auteur theory. She talked about how people in the auteur circle were more concerned with techniques of films rather than the material itself, and this is something I’ve noticed in the films that were screened this semester. The storyline/plot/narrative was never all that exciting, but it was the stylistic features that made them ‘good’ and set them apart.

If we consider non-fiction books, I can’t see how form would be more significant than the content itself. People approach these books for what’s inside and not how it’s presented. However if we consider more ‘artistic books’, like those of Graeme Base, it’s the art form that makes them memorable.

In conclusion: it depends – as always