Heart

[DwayneA]

Some book reviews complain that the story lacks heart. What does it mean when a story has heart? Why is it important?

[HAWKEYE]

Some book reviews complain that the story lacks heart. What does it mean when a story has heart? Why is it important?


Heart is a very subjective thing to judge.

In my opinion heart relates to the richness of the story and all that encompasses.

Does it just stay on the surface or is there a deeper meaning at play.

I don't know really though.:Shrug:

[dpaterso]

Some book reviews complain that the story lacks heart. What does it mean when a story has heart? Why is it important?
I'd guess it's emotional involvement, especially when tied to family values. When a story resonates with the reader, i.e. tickles an emotional/nostalgic response that makes them feel good, perhaps by taking them back to their own childhood.

-Derek

[sheadakota]

Lack of heart- Just words on paper- the writer failed to bleed a piece of themselves into the work-
and, I know, that doesn't help explain it -

[Danthia]

To me, heart is the "who cares?" factor. If there's no heart, I don't get emotionally invested in the story and I don't care what happens to those characters no matter how good the writing or how exciting the plot. The characters are just flat and going through the motions.

I suspect you hear that most when books are technically well written and "good," but just fail to engage the reader.

[J. Aronson]

I find "heart", as said, to be emotional involvement with the characters. It is the part of the book that is between the words. It is extremely important for writing to me, as text without it just somehow fails to be interesting a lot of the time. That being said-- it is an extremely subjective thing. If YOU feel your writing lacks, you have a problem. If it's just some reviews, unless it's a LOT of reviews, I wouldn't worry about it. Not every story is right for every person.

[stormie]

When I first read the OP, I thought "emotion." I see some others beat me to it. :)

[sunandshadow]

A comic book about a screenwriter whose story lacks heart, and how he fixes it:
http://www.dramatica.com/downloads/Dramatica_Comic_Book_2004.pdf

[Ruv Draba]

Top-story describes that part of plot in which characters struggle for goals.

Bottom-story describes the changes that events work on characters, and the way that characters influence each other.

The most courageous stories push their characters through changes that the audience can't anticipate; changes beyond what we'd normally consider possible or acceptable. The most compassionate stories take the audience along for the journey, unflinchingly showing each step of the change.

When stories do that, they show heart.

[bonitakale]

Good for Aronson! Especially the part about different people's liking different types of story. But I don't think "heart" is entirely subjective; rather, some people need less of it, and some, more.

I get bored by a story that's full of action and excitement, with a main character who is essentially untouched by all of it, like James Bond. A story with heart would have him learn about himself and others, force himself to do things he hates, find out what and who he loves, etc. That's not the only kind of good story, but it's the kind that keeps me reading.

[shaldna]

I would think that it's about feeling for the book, for the story and the characters, and also getting the feeling that the writer cared about them too

[Jamesaritchie]

It just means the reviewer didn't like the book.

[greatfish]

Saying a story lacks heart is just a lazy way for a reviewer to say the story was poorly written. Reviewers have no idea how to write, so when they see poor writing, they can't point out what's wrong with it. It's easier to just say the story lacked heart, or emotion. This happens all the time with music too. People like or dislike various musicians because of the "emotion" in the music. It's just an unspecific way of saying they have good or poor playing/writing technique.