Reading differently at different ages

I read everything by Salinger except Catcher when I was a teenager. I loved those Glass family stories so much. Then I got to the story with the precocious kid spouting wisdom, and I'd had enough. Knew I could never return to the author and enjoy him. I read Catcher in college, but couldn't relate to it.

Narnia was hugely formative for me as a kid: my favorite books EVER for many years, and where I learned about writing. I still often recall scenes, images, and motifs from those books, but I am scared to reread them. I was aware of the religious allegory as a kid, but it didn't bother me; now it might. I still think that, whatever his preachiness, Lewis was a fine writer.

OTOH, I loved Diana Wynne Jones' fantasy books when I was nine, and still love them. They have a complexity and a sense of danger that moralizing kids' books lack. They are to me what Rowling seems to be to others.

Totally didn't get Madame Bovary at 19. Read it again a few years later, and I was crying for Emma's pathetic fantasies and wasted life. Switching to the original French may have helped, but I think it was also post-college disillusionment.

One that still shines for me is The Phantom Tollbooth, by Norton Juster. I loved it as a kid, and I couldn't wait to give a copy to my own kids. Similarly, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is still a standout. (Funnily enough, a propos the films, I'd heard much about how much darker the Johnny Depp remake was than the original. But I found the reverse: Gene Wilder's portrayal was much, much more cynical and acid.)

As a boy, I dropped The Hobbit halfway through: it didn't interest me in the least. Reading it with the kids, and perhaps helped along by the film (which I'd never have seen without their prompting), even if I wasn't rapt by it, I could see how others could be.

As for books that lost their appeal: none jump out at me. I didn't like On the Road at all in high school - Kerouac seemed an irresponsible trust-fund brat to me. I don't think it could appeal to me less now, so I should reread it and see if I find more in it now.

Oh, I reread the Phantom Tollbooth when I bought it for my nieces last year! I still love it every bit as much as I did when I was a kid! Such a delight.

And I despise On the Road. I do not think that will ever change. (Every time I say that -- and I say it often -- Haggis materializes to second me. We should see him soon.)

rugcat said:

Sometimes it's a matter of timing. I believe that some books you read too young – without the experience and hopefully some wisdom gained over the years, they fly right over your head and fail to engage you. I believe this is particularly true of quiet, deceptively simple books, where "nothing happens."

Click to expand...

This is definitely true for me. My example of a book I completely changed my mind about is A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. I read it in school at 12 or 13, at a time when I was super into reading and writing, but really only interested in fantasy. My teacher told us it was her favourite book. I hated it. I thought it could not have been more boring. Nothing happened! For years I held it up as my example of a book I could't stand.

Eventually, in my first couple years of university, completely on my own I got interested in reading more classics and literary fiction, and my tastes changed completely. One day it occurred to me that gee, I like books where "nothing happens" now--maybe I should give A Tree Grows in Brooklyn another shot? This time, at 24ish, I absolutely loved it. And tons of stuff happens. Now I'd count it as one of my favourite books. Most of my favourite books now are books I never would have picked up as a teenager, or would have hated if I'd been forced to read them. Including, probably, the one I'm writing.

I haven't gone back to re-read most of the stuff that floated my teenage boat. I'm not really interested any more. I did re-reread about half of the first Game of Thrones book at 18 or 19--I read them first at about 16, tore through, and just about died to be left hanging (I think there were only three books at that time). Then just those couple years later, when the next one was (finally coming out), a friend was excited I'd read them and wanted to talk about them so loaned it over. Before I'd been so gripped I read 300 pages a day. This time I felt mostly 'meh.' Didn't do it for me at all. So halfway through I gave up and went back to Steinbeck or whoever I was into at the time. I think my friend was kind of disappointed.

I've been meaning to re-read Catcher in the Rye--I read it at 18 or 19, a pretty ideal age, and loved it. I am very curious to know if I still will... it seems not to age well for a lot of people. I think it might for me, but we'll see....

CassandraW said:

Oh, I reread the Phantom Tollbooth when I bought it for my nieces last year! I still love it every bit as much as I did when I was a kid! Such a delight.

And I despise On the Road. I do not think that will ever change. (Every time I say that -- and I say it often -- Haggis materializes to second me. We should see him soon.)

Click to expand...

Slowly I turn. Inch by inch. Step by step. Closer. Closer....

Haggis said:

Slowly I turn. Inch by inch. Step by step. Closer. Closer....

Click to expand...

GAAAAAAHHHH!


ETA: Did I mention I was born in Niagara Falls?

Jperez6 said:

+1. And I'm the same way with the first three Harry Potter books -- but the opposite for the final four. The writing in the early books makes me cringe these days, and now as an adult(ish) I have more appreciation for the more complicated and serious tone of the end of the series. Maybe that's what J.K. Rowling was going for?

Click to expand...

I find the exact opposite.

Something people seem to forget is that the first few books are middle grade – written for kids. And as such, they are absolutely brilliant. In fact, so good that even though they were written for 9–12-year-olds, many adults still found them fascinating. I do know that if I had been lucky enough to read them when I was nine years old, they would've been my favorite books of all time, reread over and over – just like kids do today.

The later books I found for less satisfying. For me the problem is that Rowling, supposedly trying to grow the books along with up with her audience, started writing them as YA books.

But she still had to keep the tone and the feel of the earlier books. So for me what happened is you have middle grade books dealing with YA themes and characters -- problems that teens could relate to, but still written with a middle grade voice and sensibility. This makes for a weird sort of MG/YA hybrid, and to me is far less successful than the earlier books in the series.

I'm with you, Rugcat. The writing in the first three books is tight, and strikes the perfect tone for the audience and the plot. The writing in the later books gets loose and flabby, IMO, and I had an urge to grab a red pen at more than one point.

Also, FWIW, there's a big plot glitch that becomes apparent in Book 7. It could have been avoided quite easily, but I suspect her editor wasn't bothering to edit by that point.


ETA:

Someone's inevitably going to ask about the HP plot glitch, I just know it. I do not want to derail Haskin's interesting thread. (Nor do I want to ruin the books for anyone who doesn't want a spoiler.) But if you're interested, I'm going to put it in white ink below. Highlight it at your own risk. If you Potter fans want to quibble with it, feel free to do it in a rep or visitor message,



Lily should have survived. She, not Harry, should be the One Who Lived.

According to the books, Voldemort failed to kill Harry as a baby because of Lily’s sacrifice. She stood in front of Harry’s crib without her wand, in an obviously futile attempt to defy Voldemort’s murderous intentions. Her love, her willingness to sacrifice herself for her baby, put a protective spell on Harry that made Voldemort’s deadly spell bounce off him and rebound on himself. That's a central theme in the series.

At the end of Book 7, this central theme is reiterated when Harry is willing to sacrifice himself to save his friends. As a result, all of Voldemort’s spells bounce off Harry’s friends. He can no longer hurt them.

But, see, if sacrificing yourself for a loved one puts a protective spell on them, Lily never should have died. See chapter 17 of book 7. Harry’s father confronted Voldemort without a wand (which he’d left in the cushions of the sofa). James ran into the hallway (instead of back into the living room to fetch his wand) in order to block Voldemort’s path, shouting to Lily “take Harry and go! It’s him! Go! Run! I’ll hold him off!”

However, as Voldemort gleefully realizes, James doesn’t stand a prayer “t was easy, too easy, [James] had not even picked up his wand.” One cannot hope to defeat Voldemort with karate or a sword thrust; therefore, James knew that he would surely die. (Whereas, if he’d run himself, or at the very least had run to the sofa to fetch his wand instead of into the hallway, he might have survived.) Nonetheless, James deliberately sacrificed himself in hopes of buying Lily a few precious seconds to save herself and their baby.

So why didn’t Voldemort’s deadly spell bounce off Lily? Why isn’t she the chosen one?

I noticed this on my first read of Book 7. But I thought perhaps Rowling would explain it. She didn’t. Her editor could easily have fixed this glitch by having James have his wand in his hand when he confronted Voldemort. If James had hoped to defeat Voldemort and survive, one could argue that he didn’t sacrifice himself, which would explain Lily’s death. As it is, James unquestionably made a deliberate sacrifice for his loved ones, and Rowling left one big-ass sloppy plot glitch.

I was 8 when Goblet of Fire was first published. Even though I was super excited when the book came in the mail, I wasn't actually able to get through the first chapter. I must have tried a half dozen times over the course of a year, because I LOVED the series and so did my mom and aunt. I'm thinking my 8 year old self just wasn't prepared for the shift in tone. I must have been 10 or 11 before I finally got through it. Then, when OOTP came out I could engage with it immediately. For the rest of the series my mom and I would open the package together and then spend the next week stealing the book from each other.

After thinking about the subject of this thread for a few days, I realized there only one series of books that I really miss. It's difficult to overstate how much Roger Zelazny's first three Amber books meant to me back when he first wrote them. I loved them to death, and I have no doubt they played a part in the kind of stories I wanted to tell when I started writing myself.

Now I can get through the first couple of chapters of book one. The writing bores me to tears, the characters seem flat, and I see every mistake he made.

I really miss those books. Sometimes it's best to just let sleeping books lie.

Jamesaritchie said:

After thinking about the subject of this thread for a few days, I realized there only one series of books that I really miss. It's difficult to overstate how much Roger Zelazny's first three Amber books meant to me back when he first wrote them. I loved them to death, and I have no doubt they played a part in the kind of stories I wanted to tell when I started writing myself.

Now I can get through the first couple of chapters of book one. The writing bores me to tears, the characters seem flat, and I see every mistake he made.

I really miss those books. Sometimes it's best to just let sleeping books lie.

Click to expand...

Oh dear. I haven't re-read those in years. Mean (meant?) to one day.... hhm. The imagination in them is fantastic.

Terry Pratchett is an author where I find new things on re-reading. As you know more, have met a wider range of people, other books, a paragraph or a character who was fine, nothing notable the last time you read that book suddenly leaps out as you - oh my, he's worked that in or that is just like so-and-so I met last week.

Bolero said:

Oh dear. I haven't re-read those in years. Mean (meant?) to one day.... hhm. The imagination in them is fantastic.

Terry Pratchett is an author where I find new things on re-reading. As you know more, have met a wider range of people, other books, a paragraph or a character who was fine, nothing notable the last time you read that book suddenly leaps out as you - oh my, he's worked that in or that is just like so-and-so I met last week.

Click to expand...

I really need to read more Terry Pratchett. There's just so blasted many writers, and so little time. If there is an afterlife, it had better have a giant library.

There are various "strands" - as in Witches - up in the Ramtop Mountains (first one is a take on MacBeth, the second on A Midsummer's Night Dream, the third on fairy tales) - forceful devious old ladies (and not so old)
The wizards/rincewind - nerds

Death - as in the grim reaper

Ankh Morpork city guard - Vimes.

I like all of them but the Witches and especially Vimes/Ankh Morpork are my favourites. There does seem to be a bit of a split amongst fans as to which "strand" is preferred.

Or in other words, if one doesn't really blow you away, try a book from different strand.

I will always treasure "When shall we three meet again?"
"I don't know about you but I can do next Tuesday."
(which I may have slightly misquoted).

Bolero said:

There are various "strands" - as in Witches - up in the Ramtop Mountains (first one is a take on MacBeth, the second on A Midsummer's Night Dream, the third on fairy tales) - forceful devious old ladies (and not so old)
The wizards/rincewind - nerds

Death - as in the grim reaper

Ankh Morpork city guard - Vimes.

I like all of them but the Witches and especially Vimes/Ankh Morpork are my favourites. There does seem to be a bit of a split amongst fans as to which "strand" is preferred.

Or in other words, if one doesn't really blow you away, try a book from different strand.

I will always treasure "When shall we three meet again?"
"I don't know about you but I can do next Tuesday."
(which I may have slightly misquoted).

Click to expand...

"Death is the wages of sin but it is also the rewards of virtue and at least the evil get to go home early on Fridays." - Witches Abroad

I think books I've loved usually hold up for me - even if I see the problems with them I can usually tap into the original feeling. Some books I gave up on when I was younger I find I can appreciate now, however. And some books I liked fine, I can now be incredibly awed by.

Example would be some of Astrid Lindgren's books (the Swedish children's writer responsible for Pippi Longstocking). I used to absolutely love The Brothers Lionheart (which I think Thomas Alfredsson who made Tailor, Tinker, Soldier, Spy is currently filming), and now I see tons of flaws in it. But My Son Mio, which I also absolutely loved, still simply blows me away with it's tight, poetic writing. An absolutely outstanding book, with exceptional writing for any age - and it's aimed at 8-9 year-olds, and works splendidly as that.

Well, when I was 13 I read Pride and Prejudice, The Color Purple (no, not for school.) Then when I 17 I read horror, particularly Richard Laymon. In my 20s I read a lot of crime fiction, and these days I read mainly historical and literary.

I didn't discover Rosemary Sutcliff until the age of 29, and she blew my mind.

Yes on Rosemary Sutcliff - she has such a knack for a description that sets the atmosphere.

Narnia is weird for me. Loved them, then figured out the allegory (at around age nine) and felt intensely betrayed.

Re-read as an adult, and they're...so odd. Erratic, almost. There will be really truly brilliant bits where the voice is just perfect, and then the narrator will come in being super avuncular and tell you things that are just not reflected in the text. (Susan is all kinds of awesome and the narrator really has it in for her.) It leaves you feeling like the narrator is unreliable and it makes things very weird.

And Caspian is an absolute idiot and the narrator fawns on him anyway. And Lewis insists on punishing people really out of proportion for crimes like "being enchanted" or "seasickness."

And yet, some bits are beautifully observed, and clearly Lewis had a great eye. So it's very odd.

Do not get me started on Xanth.

CassandraW said:

A book that didn't hold up so well for me was Gone with the Wind. Again, I read it for the first time when I was about eight, and a couple more times before I hit my teens. I thought Scarlett was the shit. She could do no wrong. I was happy I had black hair, green eyes, and white skin, just like her. Maybe I'd be a belle someday, too, when I grew up. I couldn't believe Rhett would leave her at the end -- I was mad at him, and mad at Margaret Mitchell for not writing a sequel where he came back on his knees.

Click to expand...

When I read GWTW the first time (not sure how old... what's the oldest I could be and still get away with this?) I was rabidly pro-KKK. I wasn't a critical reader yet (obviously!) and just took the author's perspective and was SO glad those heroic men came along to rescue the poor innocent white folks! (I still cringe thinking about it)

The misogyny in other then-favourite books was also missed by my innocent (and hateful?) young mind. I've found it better to leave most of my childhood favourites lost in the mists of time.

Captcha said:

When I read GWTW the first time (not sure how old... what's the oldest I could be and still get away with this?) I was rabidly pro-KKK. I wasn't a critical reader yet (obviously!) and just took the author's perspective and was SO glad those heroic men came along to rescue the poor innocent white folks! (I still cringe thinking about it)

The misogyny in other then-favourite books was also missed by my innocent (and hateful?) young mind. I've found it better to leave most of my childhood favourites lost in the mists of time.

Click to expand...

I'd suggest you don't beat yourself up for what was programmed into you, but rather congratulate yourself for how much you've grown in spite of it.

Captcha said:

When I read GWTW the first time (not sure how old... what's the oldest I could be and still get away with this?) I was rabidly pro-KKK. I wasn't a critical reader yet (obviously!) and just took the author's perspective and was SO glad those heroic men came along to rescue the poor innocent white folks! (I still cringe thinking about it)

The misogyny in other then-favourite books was also missed by my innocent (and hateful?) young mind. I've found it better to leave most of my childhood favourites lost in the mists of time.

Click to expand...

When I read GWTW the first time, I was still a teen, opened the book, and didn't put it down until I finished a lot of hours later. I just couldn't stop reading. It's still one of my top ten favorite books, and one that has held up perfectly.

I suspect you should read it again. I don't think it says what you thought it did.

Jamesaritchie said:

When I read GWTW the first time, I was still a teen, opened the book, and didn't put it down until I finished a lot of hours later. I just couldn't stop reading. It's still one of my top ten favorite books, and one that has held up perfectly.

I suspect you should read it again. I don't think it says what you thought it did.

Click to expand...

I don't want to re-read the book, but I just checked a few online sources and they all seem to confirm my memory - all the Atlanta gentlemen are Klansmen, they go out to get violent revenge b/c Scarlet was harassed, Rhett heroically steps in to cover up their Klan violence...

Does that not seem troubling to you? Do you read it differently?

Er, yeah. There is a lot of the author's ingrained racism in Gone With the Wind. She was brilliant about lampooning the sexism of the time (Scarlett was smart and one very-damned-capable human being), but M. Mitchell obviously didn't believe blacks could take care of themselves. Slavery was portrayed as a compassionate arrangement.

It's fine to love books that are problematic if you acknowledge what's problematic about them. Nothing is completely good or bad, after all, and a great writer can still inject some conscious or subconscious ick into their book, even if they do everything else perfectly. (Like C. S. Lewis' sudden distaste for Susan in the Narnia books; apparently that coincided with real girl the character was based on growing up into -- oh, the horror -- a teenager with her own ideas on what sort of person she wanted to be.)

When I read Catch-22 for the first time (about 14?), I couldn't understand why it was such a classic. I really detested it. Then I read it again for my senior year AP Lit class, and adored it. I got through the whole thing in two days. It was so much funnier and more poignant on my second read.

Also, I've only read GWTW once, and never plan to again. I'm not so fond of Mitchell's boner for the antebellum south.

My opinion on books doesn't change: even those read as a kid. I like them just as much. I don't even know if I get more out of them nowadays. I still learn from them, though, more by absorption than outright evaluation. So it's not like I don't have an excuse of sorts