A recent online discussion of a particular book series attracted a comment that caught my eye. The commenter disliked the series in question. They had also read all the books in the series. This seems paradoxical. A moment’s reflection reveals that it is not. Here are five perfectly valid reasons (well, four valid reasons and a logical error) for persisting with a series that’s unsuited to personal tastes.
Usually, these essays have examples but I sense authors may not want their works cited as the literary equivalent of cod liver oil, so I’ll keep this discussion more general…
The Sunk Cost Fallacy
As the word “fallacy” suggests, the sunk cost fallacy is less a supportable reason to keep reading than it is a profound error in thought to which billions of humans are subject. In its more general form, reluctance to admit one has squandered resources on an ill-advised endeavor is known as the sunk cost fallacy. It is a powerful driver of human behavior because nobody wants to admit having been wrong.
Humans, and even some book reviewers, having invested time reading disappointing books, may hesitate to abandon the books on the grounds that the expended effort would then be for naught. However, the resources used thus far are gone forever; future investment of time and effort on dreadful books will not recover them. It seems obvious that rejecting the sunk cost fallacy would make human lives better, and yet it persists. Perhaps if I were to spend just a little more time trying to convince people of the obvious logical error.…
There is a related issue, not really worth its own section, but which needs mentioning: often, people simply do not realize that they can just stop doing something if it is not rewarding.
Lack of Alternatives
Many new books are fed into continental-scale distribution channels each month. However, not everyone can afford to buy new books at the pace needed to keep up with their reading speed. Also, some of us may have buying habits learned in the old days, when fewer books were published and the means to distribute them were considerably more rudimentary than they are now. Such persons may well decide to focus on the books they can actually access, rather than those they might prefer to access. If the choice is “a library book one doesn’t especially care for” or “nothing,” the library book may well win out.
If one happens to have a particular literary itch, one may find having it scratched forces compromise on lesser concerns like prose and characterization. For example, books set in the solar system featuring plausible propulsion systems were so rare in the span between, oh, 1980 and 2010 that one could not be picky about literary quality if one wanted to read such books (one = me, in this case).
Bleak Curiosity
Many people are fascinated by catastrophe, whether in the form of car wrecks, plane crashes, or nuclear meltdowns. How did this happen? Why did this happen? Omigosh, how long will this go on? This kind of rubbernecking has given rise to works featuring imagined disasters (disaster movies, SF and fantasy works, thriller novels. etc.) and a rich tradition of books, movies, and television shows covering historical calamities. Sometimes this is to learn how to avoid them. Often it’s because explosions are cool. In a few very specific cases, this fascination may fuel a morbid fear of molasses.
A singularly terrible book offers similar diversion. How can such wretched books see print? How awful does a book have to be before the reader claws out their own eyes in a bid to escape? Entire series composed of equally—often increasingly dismal—instalments provide even greater entertainment of this sort, which is probably not good for anyone.
Illumination
This may appear counterintuitive. Surely, it is better to turn to things done well to learn than something executed badly? Flaws are easily noticed, whereas excellence can be frustratingly subtle. Knowing what not to do at least narrows down the possibilities of what to do.
Similarly, speculative fiction with egregious science errors might be annoying to read—surely everyone had basic thermodynamics drilled into them as kids? Doesn’t every grade-schooler know the rocket equation? Why would anyone think horses work like motorcycles?—but thinking about what’s wrong with a work’s underpinnings can facilitate better understanding the world.
Payment
Finally, a compelling reason to persist with a disappointing book is because someone has paid one to do so. It is possible to convince people that it’s worth their while to pay for book reviews. How to convince possible paymasters is left as an exercise for the reader.
No doubt many of you have your own perfectly valid reasons for persisting with disappointing series from time to time. Feel free to regale us with them in comments below.
In the words of fanfiction author Musty181, four-time Hugo finalist, prolific book reviewer, and perennial Darwin Award nominee James Davis Nicoll “looks like a default mii with glasses.” His work has appeared in Interzone, Publishers Weekly and Romantic Times as well as on his own websites, James Nicoll Reviews (where he is assisted by editor Karen Lofstrom and web person Adrienne L. Travis) and the 2021, 2022, and 2023 Aurora Award finalist Young People Read Old SFF (where he is assisted by web person Adrienne L. Travis). His Patreon can be found here.
