Is Mediocre Worse Than Bad?

It's been awhile since we did a discussion post, and this time's topic is...

I started thinking on this topic when I read a book I felt was very mediocre, and I started writing in the review "this is the worst thing I can say about a book". Then I stopped, and stared at what I just wrote. Is it the worst thing I can say? Technically, mediocre books usually get between two and a half to three stars from me, which is not the worst rating. I mean, they're not bad, and usually I can enjoy them...

So why did my brain chose to say that sentence? Why did it forget about the one-stars and the rant inducers?

I think it's because the amount of feelings involved. A truly bad book brings out my possibly most passionate side. I can talk about my most hated books far longer than my favorite (aside for Harry Potter, which I can discuss and re-discuss a zillion times and still I'll have more to say).

I can debate (and by debate, I mean rant) my one-stars over and over and over again (for example: Hush, Hush), and never get tired. I'm actually, inadvertently, publicizing the book. I'm subconsciously encouraging people to read it, whether by bashing the name of the book on their brain with how much I'm ranting on it, or just by making them want to see for themselves if it's really all that bad. 

Enter mediocre. 

Another word for mediocre is forgettable. Unremarkable. It's like saying: this book wasn't exactly good, it wasn't exactly bad, it just didn't do much for me.

And those books... they don't normally even get a review from me. Meaning, they don't get any publication from me. Even if I did write a review, I'm not going to really remember the book unless someone asks me about it specifically and I looked at it on GR.

They're never going to be the first to pop to my head (on any side of the scale).

So what's actually worse? Raising a storm of negative feelings to create the rant of the century with, or no feelings at all? 

   Nitzan★