As we're all aware of, I love movies, but I also really like watching bad movies. I'm definitely the kind of person who'll look at the summary for something and go "this looks awful, let's watch it", and I'm know that I'm not the only one. There are actually some movies that I want to watch because they have a reputation for being awful (unless its a gross-out movie like Movie 43. I couldn't even bring myself to watch Anton Yelchin's deleted scene because it was so gross. And I love that guy so much), and I even listen to horrendous music out of choice. Remember Aqua? Or the Vengaboys? I certainly do and I'm not ashamed to jam to their stuff.
But my question is, can books be so terrible that they're good? And I'm not talking about cheesy books, or books that are full of tried and tested cliches, I'm talking about books that are just bad. But so bad that they're weirdly enjoyable.
In my experience, I haven't read a book that is good because it's bad. Most of the bad books that I've read were either a huge struggle to get through or there were a breeze even though they sucked. I have wanted to read books that people have said were awful, simply to see what all the fuss is about, but then again, I wouldn't want to put myself through any pain by reading it (*cough*FiftyShadestrilogy*cough*). I'd probably just end up going:
 |
| (image source) |
Okay, this post is really short. Whoops.
What about you? Do you think that bad books can be "so bad they're good"? Or are bad books just bad?
My boyfriend has watched his fair share of movies that are so bad they're good and I think with bad movies it can be fun to see how bad they are, like Tremors, the movies were pretty bad, but they we're really fun as well. But with books it doesn't really work that way. I don't think I ever read a book that was so bad it was good.
ReplyDeleteFor me, I think bad books can only be bad. There's something different about bad movies that are fun to watch because they're bad. B grade horror movies, for example. They're so fun to watch because they are SO BAD.
ReplyDeleteBut movies are only, usually, about 1.5 hours long. Once they're done, not much time has passed and you can immediately go on to watch the best movie ever because there's so much time left in your day or night.
Books, however, take so much longer than 1.5 hours to read. And when I read a bad book that has taken me several hours to read, I'm just 100% disappointed that I wasted so much of my time. You can watch more movies in a lifetime than read books, so I'd much rather not waste my time on a horrible book!
Have you heard of Silent Echo: A Siren's Tale by Elissa Freilich?
ReplyDeleteYeah. That was one book that was so horrendously bad that I kept on reading just so that I could poke fun at it and write a truly negative and snarky review for once. I spent probably 90% of the time I was reading it rolling my eyes, yet I didn't give up on it. Does that mean that the book was so bad that it was actually fun to read? O_O That was the only book I came across that was so ridiculous that I might have actually had fun reading it. And I hope I don't have to put myself through the torture again, haha.
So yeah, I think it's only movies that are so bad they're fun to watch. It's rare with books because like Chiara said -- movies only take up around 2 hours, while a book can take up to days to finish. And this is going to sound cliche, but life's too short to be putting yourself through such torture, seriously. xD Conclusion: bad books are just plain bad. Those few days I spent reading Silent Echo are days I will never be able to get back...
I do like to see the occasional bad movie, like Scary movie and other movies similar to that. It's just SO bad it's hilarious but I think bad books are simply what it says: bad books. Perhaps it's because you put more time and investment into a book than in a movie and some things just work better on the screen?
ReplyDelete