“Bad” Books, and the Readers That Love Them

[james_davis_nicoll]

Inexplicably not titled "Why I Own Most of Hal Clement's Novels."

“Bad” Books, and the Readers That Love Them

Comments

[james_davis_nicoll]

Tor dot com article 480, 2024 article 25.

20 articles to go to article 500

[dwight_benjamin_thieme]

In my defense I was in my golden age. But to your point, I suspect there wasn't a lot recourse outside the public library in the (early) 70's, hence the imprinting.

On Edit: But probably and most importantly, we didn't have a James Nicoll to steer us in the right direction back then.

[jwgh]

One of the things I would do when my book reading was more about quantity than quality was mentally "OK that part is obviously silly, but if I replace [bad element] with [something better], it's basically the same book."

[jamoche]

Another reason: there are enough interesting ideas here that the fanfic will be awesome.

[scott_sanford]

From footnote four: One of the more horrifying observations by John Rogers was that by and large viewers did not care if Leverage’s plots made any sense as long as they hit the right notes in the correct order.

I'm reminded of a certain Star Trek: Strange New Worlds episode which made sense mostly because it had a plot viewers had seen many times before in many other Star Trek episodes; every long-time Trek fan watched and periodically said, "Oh, yes, here's the part where X happens..."

[(Anonymous)]

*Leverage* seemed like the kind of show I would like, but it never clicked for me. I never was sure why, but maybe it was the disjointed plots.

--
Nathan H.

[replyhazy]

There are bad books I loved because of how old I was when I read them (meaning: I had no critical reading skills and was easily pleased). Then I kept them as nostalgia rereads. And then gradually it came to me that the books were actually BAD. And I got rid of them. But you forgive a lot for nostalgia.