I have approximately ten minutes to get ready for work, which means anything that I planned to write this morning (and oh, there were plans) and anything I planned to fix this morning (that lovely list of YA book recommendations, so y’all still have time to get in more titles or reasons for why you picked the titles you did). So instead, building on the theme started with my link over to HelenKay’s early this week (which had to do with Dayo’s response to Chick-Lit in general), and the thoughtful article that the Written Nerd wrote in response to the snarkiness over the Tournament of Books, I ask you this:
Is there anything wrong with reading for pure enjoyment and escapism? Should you also read things that you may not enjoy or is life too short?
And specifically on the topic brought up by the Written Nerd, should reviewers get a grip and realize that there are high and low points to every book, and that no one outside of a select few “elitists” pay attention to what they are saying unless there is a full-on reviewer dog-pile on the book?
There are books that I’ve read that I didn’t enjoy, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t still recommend them to people. Take the Egyptologist, for example. Phillips does well with the macabre and combination of fact and fiction, but I felt that the epistolary style limited him in the end (making the book falter), and that he short-changed the readership where some characters were concerned. Overall I was disappointed, but I still offer this book up to people in book clubs because I think there are limitless discussion possibilities, and I’m sure that others will like it just fine. Should a reviewer not do the same?
So what are your thoughts?