Book Blogger Confessions is a meme that allows book bloggers to discuss issues unique to what we encounter in the blogging world. Every 1st and 3rd Monday of the month we will post a question and invite you to answer, comment and discuss opinions and different views.
Please keep the dialogue courteous. No bashing!
If you would like to participate in this meme sign up below and please feel free to to grab the button to include in your post with a link to For What It's Worth Reviews, Tigers All Consuming Media or here at Midnyte Reader.
This week's question:
Have you ever loved a book that you know is not a great literary gem? Maybe it's filled with spelling errors, tired cliches, and is utterly cheestastic but you loved it anyway.
How do you handle that as a blogger who is used to critical thinking and analysis? Do you pretend you never read the book - never to be reviewed or added to your Goodreads shelf :-)?
Do you write a review but maybe apologize and make excuses as to why you enjoyed it or are you bold and proud of any book you enjoyed?
Conversely - have you read a classic, that is considered a literary gem but you just didn't get it? Are you embarrassed to admit that or do you review it anyway?
Answer: For the first part of the question, if a book is filled with typos and cliches, I tend not to like it unless the writing is beautiful or there is some other redeeming quality that sucks me in and I don't notice errors/cheesiness. But usually, I have a low tolerance for that. However, there are many books that I absolutely loved and when I went to check on Amazon or Goodreads, I found that other people ripped them apart. Now, I can usually see people's points like maybe they thought this character was too whiny or too this or too that, but while I was reading the book I obviously didn't feel that way, or I just enjoyed the story anyway.
I don't pretend I never read the book, I add whatever I read to Goodreads. Sometimes after I write a review I also add in afterthoughts on what I found on Goodreads/Amazon and discuss it a little bit. After all, that is one of my favorite parts about book blogging...the discussions, the other points of view, and being exposed to ideas I may not have thought of on my own.
Regarding the classics...this happens to me all the time. I mean all. The. Time. Take The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson. A classic, right? You'd think as someone who loves horror I would adore this classic...a haunted house, creepy atmosphere, questionable events. Unfortunately, I just didn't. And boy do I feel dumb. I understand that it was an extremely important piece of literature and it paved the way and set the standard...and so I appreciate it, but I just didn't love it. There were several reasons, but I feel as if I missed something because of a deficiency in my mental abilities. Obviously I wasn't too embarrased to admit it because I did review it.
Regarding the two types of books above, sometimes you can be an analytical reviewer and sometimes you can be an emotional reviewer. Perhaps the habits of school come into play at times, but I'd rather have a book make an emotional impression on me than any other kind.
What about you? I'd love to hear what you have to say.
5 comments:
Yes I love the discussions that come from goodreads about a book whether a person liked it or not. I know that the books aren't all literacy pieces but they are to entertain you the reader :)
Yep, we totally agree. I review YA and I think in that genre, you need an emotional connection to the character or the story.
I also love the Goodreads reviews and discussions as long as they stay out of the realm of the mean and mocking. That always makes me uncomfortable...
I just read a book that was plagued with spelling and continuity errors from an author I otherwise enjoy. I can ignore it to a certain point if I'm still having fun with the story and take it for what it is but even I have a breaking point.
I do tend to leaver really short reviews - more like a quick impression on GR for my cheestastic reads. I enjoy them but I get that they are flawed. I put what I loved and point out what didn't work. People can decide for themselves I think.
This is an awesome question. And I can't imagine being so embarrassed about liking a book that I pretend I never read it. I try to rate a book relative to what it is supposed to be. If a book sweeps me up and I'm smiling the whole way through... well, I can forgive a lot. It's one of the reasons why I have structured reviews, though. It allows me to analyze the points that are important to me pretty objectively.
I am totally not a fan of classics. There are a few I like, but mostly I just don't get them. Part of that though I think comes from reading them in school and having to think critically rather than just read to enjoy.
Book errors have to be glaringly obvious or I won't notice them so there have been quite a few books that I've liked that others have disliked for those reasons.
Post a Comment