"There are good books and there are bad books, period, that's the distinction"

Norton Juster’s assertion draws a clear, unwavering line between the value of literary works: books are either good or bad, with no room for ambiguity or nuance in the distinction. This black-and-white approach to literature challenges the often-accepted idea that taste and preference are subjective and that all books may have value depending on perspective, background, or mood. Juster appears to argue that a book’s merit stands on its own, independent of the reader’s experience or the cultural context in which it is read.

Such a statement strips away the layers of relativism that so often color discussions about books. Instead, it demands accountability from authors and publishers: a good book must meet certain standards, be it originality, craftsmanship, emotional impact, or clarity of ideas. A bad book, conversely, fails at these essential elements, offering little to nothing in substance or execution.

This perspective can be both liberating and constraining. It gives readers permission to dismiss what does not serve or inspire them, refusing to waste time laboring through mediocrity or poorly constructed narratives. Simultaneously, it risks oversimplifying a complex cultural landscape, where a book considered poor by one generation or society becomes a treasure for another. Nevertheless, Juster’s viewpoint reflects a confidence in the power of critical standards and a faith that not all works deserve equal esteem.

By making such a categorical distinction, Juster emphasizes the importance of discernment. To engage with books is not just to consume but to judge, to elevate those works that succeed in their aims and to leave behind those that do not. He urges writers to strive for excellence and readers to recognize it, highlighting the responsibility shared by both groups to maintain and uphold the quality of literature.