The New York Times ran an op-ed by Pamela Paul this weekend arguing that folks should read books they know they are going to hate.
She argues that it sharpens your critical mind to look closely at something you know doesn't fit your taste and really wade through it, to take it all in.
At a time when people are siloed into narrow sources of information according to their particular tinted worldview — those they follow on Twitter, the evening shoutfest they choose, AM talk radio or NPR — it’s no surprise most of us also read books we’re inclined to favor. Reading is a pleasure and a time-consuming one. Why bother reading something you dislike?
But reading what you hate helps you refine what it is you value, whether it’s a style, a story line or an argument. Because books are long-form, they require more of the writer and the reader than a talk show or Facebook link.
I thought it was great. It was like a challenge. One that I have accepted.
So I am going to read All Stories Are Love Stories by Elizabeth Percer. Maybe I won't hate it? But that's not a title I would ever choose, though.
What book are you going to read that you know you won't like?
Hmm. Not sure how I feel about this approach to reading books. My challenge this year is to only read indie published books. Now, I've already read a few that were not in my normal genre, but I didn't hate them. I'm curious, what is your "hate this book" criteria?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit