Um, well, not exactly. I love me a good story but I can love a book with no story and everything else. Take Breakfast at Tiffany's. There is really no story. It's a character sketch of an unusual and complicated woman. The writing is extraordinary. But is there a plot? Not really. And that's okay. One of my favorite authors, Carol Shields, used very little plot in her stories as well.
Booking Through Thursday
If you’re anything like me, one of your favorite reasons to read is for the story. Not for the character development and interaction. Not because of the descriptive, emotive powers of the writer. Not because of deep, literary meaning hidden beneath layers of metaphor. (Even though those are all good things.) No … it’s because you want to know what happens next?
Or, um, is it just me?
Then there are books where you should hate the story, like Lolita. Pedophile kidnaps tween; let's see what happens. Yuck! But despite this, I ended up loving this book because of the language. I wish the stories had been different, but whatcha gonna do?
Of course, I can turn off my brain and read just for the story with nothing else. The Da Vinci Code wasn't the greatest writing ever set down on paper but there was plenty of story. I was exhausted from all the running from place to place in that one.
A not so great book is one where the author can't make up his/her mind. Just when you think the story is going to go somewhere, things just stop happening and the author tries to throw in a bunch of metaphors. I'm thinking of a recent novel which I will not name. I will forget the name (hint, hint).
So I guess I'd say that I read different books for different reasons.