Is it as impossible to create a complete descriptive set of criteria for bad books as it is to create one for good books? One of the elements of a good book must be that it is, while resonating with other books, still unlike any other book one has read before. This irreducible difference makes it essentially impossible to characterise good books: no two great books are good in exactly the same way or for the exact same reasons. But what about bad books? Lack of originality is a contender for a criterium, but is it any more possible to bring the infinity of reasons why books may be bad into a systematically ordered whole than it is to predict what makes a book good?
An answer to the questions should not appeal to the subjective nature of taste judgments such as good or bad.
Thoughts fallen by the wayside 