Yesterday I was talking with Aravis and, as all good co-dependent bibliholics do, we talked about books. I mentioned my current read, Episodes, and said that I really didn't like it.
When I read a "meh" book, I question why the publisher decided to waste time, effort and trees on that particular publication. In this case, I know why: the author is a high-functioning autistic. This book is supposed to give us insight into what life is like for someone with that type of mental process - in Blaze's case, he apparently sees things as discrete episodes in various television series (for example, his freshman year of school). As Sondheim wrote, you gotta have a gimmick, and the conceit here is that the book is written as though it were a large TV Guide or retrospective of some television show.
So reading this, not being particularly excited by the content and being annoyed by the gimmick, I felt guilty. As I said to Aravis, I feel a little like someone that sees a mediocre painting and then learns that it was painted by a blind person: does that mean it is somehow elevated from mediocre? Should we hold that painter (or author, or composer, or whatever) to a lower standard, or can we say "this doesn't do it for me"?