I’m an eclectic reader and that means my reading tastes are not confined to or defined by genres. I enjoy reading a good story, excellent characters, and a beautiful writing regardless of which audience the book is targeting or which sub-sub-sub-genre that book belongs to. Yeah, I’ve heard science-fiction-fantasy-with-magical-realism-and-contemporary-world as a ‘genre’ to define a book. Sounds like a dish at a high-end restaurant, a tasty dish no doubt. But if it isn’t tasty, the mixture of four genres is not going to make me love it. 

My reviews are versatile and the tone of each review depends on what the book made me feel. If I’ve given away my heart to an amazing book, the review will be having all caps and italics and exclamation marks for me to shout my love from the rooftop. And if I didn’t like the book, there wouldn’t be any sort of beating around the bush. I didn’t like it, that’s it. I don’t prefer to put too much energy into those book reviews. 

I primarily rate books out of five stars (yes, a very standardised, overused method but what can I say, I’m not very creative.) where as the number of stars increase I climb up the stairs. Why, remember? To the rooftop, to shout my love! 

Now, there might be unpopular opinions in my reviews or ratings but what’s not unpopular is the presence of some weirdos online who take pride in calling out a person based on their reading choices. If you’re one of them, understand why I would never fight over someone not liking Harry Potter even though I love it–because I don’t give a shit and you shouldn’t either. 


digital copy of tarnished are the stars against a typography of the blog post heading and sub heading