. . . wanted to let you know about it, because it does happen. One was a medieval history by a reputable historian incapable of documenting his bizarre conjecture and innuendo. Very weird. The other was a local history booklet that was 98% Town Yearbook 1945, with all the editorial biases of the genre. I was okay with it, actually, but I have a school-spirit deficiency, so it wasn’t a good match.
All that complaining to prove this: There are actually books I do not like.
I was beginning to feel a tad self-conscious, because I keep finding books that I do like. As if I were a yearbook editor, just cheerin’ on everything that passes my desk. Kind of refreshing to read 1.15 horrible books in the row.
So there you go. I don’t need my books to be perfect. I’ll give a ‘recommend’ rating to a book that has weaknesses, as long as it does what it sets out to do. Assumes of course it sets out to do something worthwhile. I guess maybe my standard is this: When I’m done with the book, am I glad I spent my time on it?
(And my secret review program technique for avoiding the obligation to write bad reviews — which I hate to do — is to try to pick books I already know are going to be good. Sometimes they turn out better than expected, sometimes not quite as good as hoped. But I do try to rig the system that way. Not such an altruist that I’ll intentionally obligate myself to read a dubious book. Which makes me super super glad that horrid to-remain-nameless medieval history was not on a review program choice list. That would been very many pages of pain. And I would have totally fallen for it.)
Return to The Catholic Conspiracy