Second, the writer needs to do some deep thinking about the topic. If this component is missing, the book often degenerates into the equivalent of a transcript from a dull lecture. As a reader, I often start to wonder during such reading if I could get the same information elsewhere (like Wikipedia or even maybe one of my silly TOA reading reviews).
Third, it needs the writer to draw on some significant amount of life experience with the topic. The obvious reason is that those without life experience rely on other sources – including previously written work – to get the information they are missing. This results in the obvious question - if the information were coming from somewhere else, then why would I read your book (1)?
One place I often see books that have these components are those written by good authors in fields that do not generate many good authors. I think Jonathan Rowson’s Seven Deadly Chess Sins is a good example of this in action. As a grandmaster, he passes the ‘deep thinking’ and ‘significant life experience’ tests – all he does every day is think and experience chess! But despite going through the time-consuming process of becoming a chess expert, Rowson also learned how to write somewhere along the way. Don’t ask me how he did it – I just know it happened because his book was really good (2).
My rules explain the strange phenomenon of the ghostwritten 'auto'-biography that turns out to be pretty good. It’s because it goes three for three in a roundabout way – the subject being interviewed brings the life experience, the ghostwriter adds the writing ability, and the two of them chatting about the project works out as a good substitute for deep thinking. In the case of the ghostwritten 'auto'-biography, it is a case of two people coming together to go three for three rather than one writer carrying the full load.
Footnotes / into the weeds of logic we go!
1. Just remember – I’m talking about what will lead to a good book, not what a good book is.
A good book requires a good writer who has thought deeply about the topic and has some life experience to draw from – does this sound too obvious, reader? Or perhaps, just flat out wrong? Well, it’s not what I said. The logic there is reversed – what I’m saying is that if a book has all those components, it’ll turn out pretty good.
The books with two or even just one of those components might turn out pretty good, too. Hell, I won’t even rule out a book that has none of those components. I’m just saying today that if the book doesn’t have all three, its success isn’t a sure thing.
2. Applying the checklist concept to being… better?
I saw a different but very helpful angle to this idea when I thought about Atul Gawande’s books. Like Rowson, Dr. Gawande is a superior writer to his peers in a field that does not make much time for working on writing skills (doctors are stereotyped for having illegible handwriting - it's no mystery that few can write a good book). However, some of his books were clearly better examples of my idea in action than others. I thought his best work was The Checklist Manifesto. This book drew on his deep thinking about the ‘checklist’ concept and described the ensuing challenge of his experience as he implemented it across various medical organizations.
His other books (such as Better or Being Mortal) were perfectly enjoyable works in their own way. But they lacked the direct link of deep thinking and intense personal experience that made The Checklist Manifesto work so well. Better is a good book that draws together various experiences while Being Mortal is at times reflection on what others in the field have implemented. As I noted in footnote #1, these facts do not preclude them from being great - and at times these books do reach a level of greatness - but if I had to pick out one of Gawande's books as truly great, I would select The Checklist Manifesto.
