book info: on sale: now copy from: public library pages: 348 review written: 21.12.17 originally published: 2009 edition read: Penguin NAL 2009 title: Rooftops of Tehran author: Mahbod Seraji In a middle-class neighborhood of Iran's sprawling capital city, 17-year-old Pasha Shahed spends the summer of 1973 on his rooftop with his best friend Ahmed, joking around one minute and asking burning questions about life the next. He also hides a secret love for his beautiful neighbor Zari, who has been betrothed since birth to another man. But the bliss of Pasha and Zari's stolen time together is shattered when Pasha unwittingly acts as a beacon for the Shah's secret police. The violent consequences awaken him to the reality of living under a powerful despot, and lead Zari to make a shocking choice... my thoughts: This book was first published in 2009 and I remember adding it to my list around that time but never actually reading it since I preferred checking out library books to ...
It's been awhile since we did a discussion post, and this time's topic is...
I started thinking on this topic when I read a book I felt was very mediocre, and I started writing in the review "this is the worst thing I can say about a book". Then I stopped, and stared at what I just wrote. Is it the worst thing I can say? Technically, mediocre books usually get between two and a half to three stars from me, which is not the worst rating. I mean, they're not bad, and usually I can enjoy them...
So why did my brain chose to say that sentence? Why did it forget about the one-stars and the rant inducers?
I think it's because the amount of feelings involved. A truly bad book brings out my possibly most passionate side. I can talk about my most hated books far longer than my favorite (aside for Harry Potter, which I can discuss and re-discuss a zillion times and still I'll have more to say).
I can debate (and by debate, I mean rant) my one-stars over and over and over again (for example: Hush, Hush), and never get tired. I'm actually, inadvertently, publicizing the book. I'm subconsciously encouraging people to read it, whether by bashing the name of the book on their brain with how much I'm ranting on it, or just by making them want to see for themselves if it's really all that bad.
Enter mediocre.
Another word for mediocre is forgettable. Unremarkable. It's like saying: this book wasn't exactly good, it wasn't exactly bad, it just didn't do much for me.
And those books... they don't normally even get a review from me. Meaning, they don't get any publication from me. Even if I did write a review, I'm not going to really remember the book unless someone asks me about it specifically and I looked at it on GR.
They're never going to be the first to pop to my head (on any side of the scale).
So what's actually worse? Raising a storm of negative feelings to create the rant of the century with, or no feelings at all?
So why did my brain chose to say that sentence? Why did it forget about the one-stars and the rant inducers?
I think it's because the amount of feelings involved. A truly bad book brings out my possibly most passionate side. I can talk about my most hated books far longer than my favorite (aside for Harry Potter, which I can discuss and re-discuss a zillion times and still I'll have more to say).
Enter mediocre.
And those books... they don't normally even get a review from me. Meaning, they don't get any publication from me. Even if I did write a review, I'm not going to really remember the book unless someone asks me about it specifically and I looked at it on GR.
They're never going to be the first to pop to my head (on any side of the scale).
So what's actually worse? Raising a storm of negative feelings to create the rant of the century with, or no feelings at all?
Nitzan★
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét