Those who read only good books cannot understand such a mentality, or perhaps whomever reviewing the books may not be properly trained to know what to look for. Unfortunately, bad books are commonplace in the literary world and should have an important place in our lives, if for no other reason than to keep the brain active and alert! We reviewers who understand the craft will spend time wondering what incredibly dumb thing the author will say a few pages down the road in lieu of giving us ‘the rest of the story’.  At no point do I ever lose sight of the fact WHY bad books are truly bad, or that it might be reasons why others may thhink it may be good. But the educator in me will forever cry the need for grammatical forttitude to be in place, that is -- for metaphor placed adequately, for hyperbole to standout, and for syntax to ring supreme. When authors understand this, there are, and will be no bad books!  It is my opinion that bad books comes about when authors fail to do all of the aforementioned, and a lot more of the simpler things in crafting good linguistic verve. Storyboards and writing a preliminary synopsis are archaic to some, I was told. Then there are those that eschew research as being tedious and time consuming. They opt to go on instinct without getting the facts; and their belief that they are consummate storytellers writing with purpose and with a sense of continuity often betray them. Perhaps then, one of the main reasons bad book lovers go out of the way to make their sentiments known is because it is a way of resisting the hegemony of good taste. Is thhat the right approach?

    If status quo would be left alone without admonishment devoid of a system adhering to checks and balances, then there would be no parameters or wherewithal to tell authors that their books sucks! I then, would get a chance to tell them sans the rancor that there indeed was something good about their book, but lacked the vivacity of page-turning delight. In other words tone, tenor and a knack for being diplomatic without the condencending approoach has always been my way of not hurting authors feelings avout a bad book. With customary insight, a copious reader once surmised: “A good newspaper is never quite good enough, but a lousy newspaper is bad Karma.” I agree. Some people would identify a passion for any book that is good as long as the author make a case to tell a somewhat decent story. Some have even told me that bad books are guilty pleasures, but I prefer to think of them as pleasures I do not feel guilty about, even though I probably should. Bad movies, bad hairdos, bad relationships and bad Supreme Court rulings merely make me think twice. But a bad book will disappoint me every time. And if they ever stop writing books with lines like “Being an Atheist is better than to worship someone sight unseen is often par for any course,” I would stop breathing on the spot, and while waiting to exhale soluble solutions would be first on my mind. Then there are authors who would want to edit their own books (now, THAT'S a story for another time!). When was the last time YOU read or have written a bad book and admitted it?