Now look at that ... I've hit quite a nerve with last week's post about lil' ol' judgmental me. But did that ever lead to a wonderful discussion or what?
So, here it is. The aftermath.
In short, this is what last week's post boils down to: I claimed the 50 Shades books were crap without actually having read them.
And comments started rolling in. There were a few who chimed in, admitting to judging other people's reading choices, and then there were those who made it very clear that if I have not read a book, as crappy as it might be, then I have no right in judging it. Good point there, and I can't even disagree on that statement. Last but not least, let me add that I absolutely loved when Judith commented that she stopped reading my blog post the moment she realized I never read the book.
Now, time for yet another confession.
Worse than what I rambled on about last week!?!?
See (and judge) for yourself.
Well ... in the meantime I did read a few pages of the first 50 Shades book *gasp*. I figured it couldn't be worse than a root canal (I was wrong). Admittedly after 12 pages I heeled it out of that bookstore (come on, you didn't seriously expect me to pay good money for that novel!?) and despite saying to myself, "Self, you should give this book a fair chance!" those few pages did not inspire me to favorable thoughts of any kind.
The question is, having read a dozen pages doesn't exactly qualify me for throwing in my ten cents either ... or does it?
Daring reader that I am I will still share my thoughts on those few pages. Let's call it a first impression.
A narrative which I'd expect from a very mediocre (that's putting it nicely) YA novel with adult protagonists who are awfully chlichéd in both appearance and actions. Adonis? My ass.
I've been pondering this matter for some time now and would like to hear your thoughts on this - how far do you have to stick your head into a book before you are, by all means, allowed to come to an opinioned conclusion (aka judgment).
Do you need to read the whole book?
Half of it?
So, how much do you, personally, believe is necessary to read before you may officially declare a book to be abysmally poor when it comes to plot, characterization, narrative, etc.? After all, while the narrative voice itself is usually quite consistent, the plot is a whole different story and things can really start picking up, maybe even half a page after you decided to call it quits.
I know that many don't write reviews of books they don't finish, because they only got so far and it wouldn't do a book as a whole justice, especially if it means it gets pulled to pieces on account of the first two chapters being below your expectations/standards/etc. I rarely encounter this kind of problem as I am a bit of a fighter and will struggle through almost every book until the bitter end. Sometimes things get worse, sometimes they get a whole lot better. In the first case I often wish I had given up, in the second I am glad I didn't cave and kept on going.
Now that we've established it's not fair to have on opinion on something you don't know at all, I wonder how well acquainted do you have to get with a book and its characters to rant about it?
You know the drill. Comment away!