We must have different definitions for "mediocre". They way I define it, I couldn't imagine reading say 10 mediocre books just because they were part of a series that I'd started, and one that I'd already determined to be mediocre. As you mention, there's way too many authors and series out there to get stuck in something you don't like.
So if the OP is unable to stop reading books he doesn't like, maybe it's a bad idea to start WoT since it's possible he may not like it. Shame to not be able to determine that first and then bail if you want, but I guess there are some people unable to do that?
I use the one given by the dictionary
Of only moderate quality; not very good: "a mediocre actor".
And who says you cannot like reading things of moderate quality? The question is whether the time would be better spent on enjoying other, better, more varied stuff that would give you a good palette of what's available in the genre to boot.
Well, if that's the case maybe they are better reading short stories collections or novellas. Shit, don't even bother reading, as the time could be spent doing something productive.
Yeah, sure, saying that the time one would use on WoT could be better spent on multiple other, better series in the genre, for a better enjoyment and a better vision of the genre, is obviously like telling someone to not read. Good thing you're here to show us those intelligent and rational implications.
ETA: Not the first time I say it, but screw the "new" forum engine for not supporting any special character.
Edited by Errant Bard, 17 May 2013 - 01:55 AM.