[LMB] ot question: The Android's Dream

Tora K. Smulders-Srinivasan tora.smulders at gmail.com
Tue Jun 10 10:06:48 BST 2008


On 6/10/08, Marilyn Traber <mtraber251 at earthlink.net> wrote:
> that
> basically make them useless for entertainment reading.

I wonder if that's part of it.  Some books I find engaging on a pure
entertainment level, others on a fascinated, 100% entranced, "can't
put down for the life of me" level which I may think are wonderful but
are too emotionally draining/cathartic/whatever to be "entertaining"
(Bujold!).

While still other books are amusing once, but not something I'd read
again (not completely overlapping with entertainment).

Others are horrible once and never again (could be ones that were
meant as entertainment but weren't or "literature").

Others are not my type of book, but were quite engrossing to read, I'm
glad I read them, but wouldn't read them again -- that's where
"literature" often falls for me. Often with those kinds of books, I
can appreciate how well the books are written and how good the books
are, and again, I'm glad I read them -- but I don't enjoy them,
really.  Not when I'm reading them.

Unlike the entertainment books and other books in the "Bujold"
category -- those I enjoy reading.  So I'd read them again and again.

But - I wouldn't say that I hated the books in the category that
"literature" falls in or that they were "horrible" books.  I save that
for bad writing.  They're just in a different category for me -- not
the "books I love", which of course, includes Bujold.  ;-p

-Tora, who also finds these categories change quite a lot over the
years too, and is also wondering why she hadn't read Jules Verne
before these last few weeks...



More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list