Powered by Blogger.
Win a copy of Nobody and Every Other Day by Jennifer Lynn Barnes (ends 2/20)

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Which is Worst?

In between my screams of frustration, tests, papers, and failed group meetings I somehow (miraculously more like it) was able to find time to read. That doesn't always mean I finish what I read. The past couple of weeks has produced more books that I had not been able to finish than all summer of '09. That had me thinking though: Which is worst, DNF or BAD?

In my opinion a bad book is worst than a did not finish book. With a bad book there is a possibility that your book-discussing-friend might be interested in this "horrendous" book. It sounds so bad that the mind thinks, 'how bad can it be?'.

Whereas with a did-not-finish book what can you say to your friend when they ask about it? It was eh...blah...I didn't get anything out of it. There is nothing you can say to intrigue your friend. It all comes down to 'curiosity killed the cat'.

So in your eyes, which is worst? A book that you were not able to finish reading or a book that you considered bad, but was still able to finish it. Or are these two categories correlated?

10 comments:

  1. I think it's worse having a book I wasn't able to finish, I hate leaving things unfinished. If I hated a book then I can always rant it out of my system when I'm done and add to my mental "what NOT to do" list for writing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is pretty n/a to me because I finish every book I start. If I asked a friend about a book though, I think a DNF would be worse because the person basically lost hope that the book could improve. At least in a bad book, the person had enough will to finish it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. For me, a did not finish book is worse than a bad book. I have only a few times in my life put a book down and never finished it. Bad books I get through. Naturally, I dislike them but I'm able to finish them. A did not finish book has to be really REALLY terrible.

    ReplyDelete
  4. personally, it hink a DNF is worse, because i don't have any "100 page rules', i actually have a pretty strong reading tolerance for "meh" books. the truly horrendous ones I dislike too much, I put down and then complain about them :P

    ReplyDelete
  5. Always felt DNF is worse. The thing is that, you may lose interest in the book at first but it might get better later on before you know it! And those that are bad, you can let others know about it so they don't have to read it (and let your rant free).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, if the book is bad, I probably didn't finish it to begin with. Although, if it was one I won in a contest, I probably read further than if it was one I bought. Humm, I just realized that. You would think if I forked out my own money, I'd be willing to try harder. Actually, other than two new HB's I preordered based on the previous wonderful books that these authors had produced, I don't think there have been many I bought and didn't finish. As these both occurred in the same month, I decided then that I was not preordering ANY HB's as that was $40 flushed down the drain. If I think it's an iffy book, I usually borrow it from the library. That's one of the biggest reasons I started reading blogs, I wanted REAL people's opinions on where I spent my money. And congratulations guys, a job well done.

    alterlisa AT yahoo DOT com
    http://lisaslovesbooksofcourse.blogspot.com/
    (\___/)
    (='.'=) Happy Easter from Bun!
    (")_(")

    ReplyDelete
  7. DNF, bad books are at least finished. But DNF, I don't know. It really kills the whole substance of it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think a bad book is worse ... it means I suffered through a story that I could barely get through.

    Whereas with a DNF, I didn't waste my time slogging through something that wasn't a good match for me on any level.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It bothers me greatly when I'm unable to finish a book; that to me is a testament to its badness. A DNF means there is simply no hope of recovery and, by some miracle, if you were able to finish, you'd be pissed and start stalking the author and publisher demanding they give you your time back (or some equivalent) until your family finally locks you up in an insane asylum. Yeah. DNF is definitely worse.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'd say DNF is worse because it was so bad that you couldn't even finish it, whereas you at least slogged through a book you end up considering "bad." I can't remember the last book I didn't finish though...even if I don't care for a book I can't help but think that maybe, if I keep reading to the end, my opinion will change. Usually it doesn't, but I do try to give it that chance. :)

    ReplyDelete