Do You Read Books You Know You're Going to Hate?

This question is brought on by the publication of E.L James's Grey.

When Grey came out a short while ago (or at least, it was a short while ago when I drafted this), the internet raged. How dare E.L James try to milk this cow any farther? How dare she attempt to make readers sympathize with Christian? Etc etc.. 

(Not disagreeing/agreeing, I'm steering clear of this argument as I've never read any of the books)

And... Grey became a best-seller almost overnight. Not necessarily surprising, that.

The surprising part is that people who absolutely detested the first three books or people who knew without a doubt that they were going to hate this book.... bought Grey. Just so they could... hate on it? assure themselves it was really as bad as they thought it was and they were not missing anything? not entirely sure about the logistics...

But that got me thinking... do you ever read books you know you're going to hate? Do you waste money or time on something you are certain is going to be bad? 

This doesn't make any sense to me, and I am a total ranter! I mean, this might sound bad to people but I love writing rant reviews. Somehow, it makes hating a book a fun experience, and I'm for that (but I am never offensive to the author). I'm all for making a bad experience fun, and funny, and to just kind of... squeeze all the bad out of it. 

But I never set out to hate a book. 

In fact, I go so far as to avoid popular books, even the BIGGEST THINGS EVER, if I see indication in other reviews/the summary that it's not going to be my cup of tea (insta love, love triangle, douche love interest, etc) just because I really don't want to hate the book - and I don't want to waste my time/money on something I'm not likely to really enjoy.

Do some books slip through the crack? OF COURSE! Do you sometimes buy a book before you realize you might not like it and end up reading it out of guilt? It happens. And when it does, viola - ranting!

But... do you do that on purpose? 

Nitzan★

Read More

Which TBR Matters?

We, the book people, all have something we refer to as our "To Be Read" pile. We always say "our TBR". But recently, when thinking about it, I realized something. We don't have a TBR. We have TBRs.

What do I mean?

1. Physical TBR

This one consists of all your unread books on your physical shelves at home, in your personal library. This is the most visible of TBRs, the one people actually see if you invite them over.

Currently, I have around 70 books on this TBR.

This is the TBR that really matters to me, and is the one I work the hardest on minimizing. Why? Because this is the one I feel obligated to excuse. If someone walks into my room, sees a book and asks me how it is, I am unable to just say "I haven't read it yet". I feel obligated to give a very detailed explanation why, because I feel almost ashamed that it's still unread (and that I'm buying more books despite of this fact).

2. The Series TBR

This TBR is mostly compiled of sequels we intended to one day read. All bookworms love their series. All bookworms know waiting for the next book to publish/to get your hands on is torture. And all bookworms know sometimes, in the wait, you end up... forgetting you wanted to read the next book so badly.
So this TBR tends to grow and grow and grow until it's a monster (like all TBRs, when you think of it...).

I'm "Currently Reading" 117 series. That means 117 immediate sequels, not to include all the trilogies, sagas, etc... That's A LOT of books.

This one is also high on my list, as I'd like to really narrow it down, especially when it comes to finished book series.

3. the Electronic TBR

Nowadays, almost everyone has an electronic TBR, compiled of all the electronic books we've got.

Mine is split into two:
a) freebie purchases (which currently stand on 902. I know, I've got a problem).
b) my paid for purchases (73, but I've read a big number of them).

This TBR, to me, is on lower priority. I still go to great lengths to clean it up and reduce my unread titles (especially in the Paid For department), but no one actually sees these books. They're hidden inside this small device, so I don't have to excuse anything.

4. Goodreads/Leafmarks/Booklikes TBR.

This one is made from all the thousand books we mark "To Read" on these sites. Those tend to be the biggest of TBRs, for the sole reason you're not obligated to anything on it. Marking "To Read' is marking interest, not committing to marriage.

To me, this TBR is of the lowest priority. I mark things that look interesting, but more often than not I forget about them. The books on my GR TBR that I do end up reading are books that ended up standing out of the rest, be it because my friends talked about them all the time, they sounded exceptionally intriguing or were just plain beautiful (yes, I'm shallow. Get over it).

Every once in a while I'll go to my GoodReads TBR and clean it up a little, erasing those books I can't even remember why I added, but it never seems to grow any smaller...

Those are just four types of TBRs. I'm sure there are more, and that every one of us has different versions of TBRs.

Which TBR is the most important to you? The one you pick from the most and care the most about reducing? 

   Nitzan★

Read More

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★

Read More

Author Bios - Yay or Nay?

Okay, guys. Get ready. Some dirty secrets are about to be aired. Just don't hate me afterwards, okay?

There's a subject that's been on my mind for a while now - author bios. 

I admit, it never accord to me to put the author's bio on my review post of their book. I see it often enough on other blogs, and I do it in tour related posts, but never because I thought to put it there. Lately, I've been wondering about that - like, why don't I do that?

I reached two conclusions on that:

1) I just don't care who the author is - I care for the book. A good book is a good book no matter who wrote it, and same for a bad book. When I read, I never once stop to think of the author. Before I became a book blogger, I often forgot author names. I could always recall a book based on it's plot, but aside for special few (like the Queen herself, J.K Rowling), I wouldn't know a book based on it's author.

Okay, maybe this is a little dramatic, but...

Now, things are a little different. Often enough I'll come to search an author out because I know I love their writing. And, rarely, I'll put a warning to a name because I heard some form of scandal related to them that made me want not to support them. Or, occasionally, I'll have to try and put aside my feelings on one of their books to try the others. But really, they're the farthest thing from my mind when I read. I only do all that because being a book blogger kind of forces you to notice authors (and that's not a bad thing at all, guys. I'm not complaining. If anything, I'm thankful).

It's like, the author is an Entity to me. They're something quite outside the realm of reality. That's why I also have trouble realizing that one day, my favorite authors will be dead. Some of them already are. It's inconceivable!

I'd really rather stay in my cushioned fantasy world where Authors are immortal and will forever bestow upon us the gift of their stories. I'm delusional, so what?

2) I don't really "believe" in bios, so to speak. A bio doesn't tell me much about the author, to be honest. It's dry facts. And in today's world, where I can actually contact authors on social media and learn to know them for real, those bios seem so... meaningless to me. I don't read them when I see them on fellow blogger's reviews.

For example, a bio will not tell you how an author prosecuted a reviewer for not liking his/her book in the court of the net, which 2014 did not lack in. Nor will the bio tell you how an author reached out to a reviewer who disliked their book to tell them they appreciated the feedback and even agree with them (as happened to me at the end of 2014), or how they sent free copies to their book to a fan when they couldn't get the book themselves. It won't tell you how they interact with their readers, or don't.

So, because of all this, I never put up their bios. I link to places you can find their bios, if you so please (like GR), but I don't make it part of the post.

But I see plenty who do. Do you read those bios? Are they important to you? Do you think it's necessary for them to be in the post? Do you agree with me/disagree with me? tell me all about it!

Nitzan★

Don't Forget to Follow us on Tsu!

Read More