Thanks for your comments.

You question, "How could you say a book or any other artistic piece is 'good'?" really touches at the heart of the matter.

As noted, I am not really sure how I can say that.

But I am pretty sure that I can.

Whether words are "necessary" or not - or, I guess more to the point, whether they add something to the work - likely depends in large part upon one's personal tastes.

Maybe I just prefer Faulker's words to Updike's and it's as simple as that.

But, in terms of meaning, I think that there is something to be said for relying on a certain amount of confidence that the reader will get the point, or at least a point. Which, perhaps, is part of what makes it "art" as opposed to a newspaper.

As to the style, there is certainly something to be said for "lyrical" or "literary" or other "well-written" pieces. But I'm not sure Updike's leaves a "personal and unrepeatable print." Rather, I would imagine it's the type of writing that you could find in virtually every creative writing program in the country.

I think it is something else which makes The Centaur "good".

(Even though I can't quite put my finger on it.)

Thanks again and best wishes, - Steve Herman

P.S. For whatever it's worth, I like Ken Follet. :)