First impressions & second guessing.
I'm an avid reader. Well, I was an avid reader two years ago; now I'm an ardent reader. There's a difference.
For some reason I've been on a rereading binge this year; at least 3/4 of what I've read this year, I read for a second time. And while thinking about this recently, something struck me as funny. First impressions are -at least for me, it seems- not always 100% accurate. And in some cases, not even 50% accurate.
While my first impressions of the bulk of the books I reread this year remained virtually intact and unscathed, there are a few instances where I was dead wrong first time round.
Primary example is David Brin's Kil'n People, a pulpy sci-fi/crime thriller, which I enjoyed the hell out of first time round. The second time, however, I couldn't help noticing what an enormous piece of crap it was. Characters didn't captivate me, the story didn't excite me, and the writing style didn't particularly make me envy Mr. Brin. I struggled to get through it, and it was due to sheer pigheadedness that I managed it.
Another, more complex example, is my current read, Jose Saramago's semi-apocalyptic Blindness, which was one of the best books I read in early '04. This time round, though, it just doesn't do it for me. The aforementioned complexity lies in the following: I still clearly recognise the quality of the writing, and the importance of the premise and it's execution, but the book itself, as a whole, kind of bores me this time. Take the long, strung together sentences, and the namelessness of the main characters; these are gimmicks I so very much enjoyed first time round, because they put you in the shoes of the blind and helpless characters - they simply annoy the pants off me now. I find myself skimming and skipping more and more often, and still this book doesn't seem to want to end. Yet again, pigheadedness shall prevail.
So, is this because it's a reread? Seems unlikely, because the bulk of this year's rereads went down fine. Have my tastes shifted away from these specific books? Could be; I got slightly older, and slightly more mature and experienced in the ways of life. Or are first impressions not always as correct as we think they are? That, the first time around, you are so excited about the author, or the premise of the book, that you tend to forget about the minor (and perhaps major) annoyances?
And, perhaps more importantly, which impression is correct; the first or the second one?
Who knows?
Cheers
For some reason I've been on a rereading binge this year; at least 3/4 of what I've read this year, I read for a second time. And while thinking about this recently, something struck me as funny. First impressions are -at least for me, it seems- not always 100% accurate. And in some cases, not even 50% accurate.
While my first impressions of the bulk of the books I reread this year remained virtually intact and unscathed, there are a few instances where I was dead wrong first time round.
Primary example is David Brin's Kil'n People, a pulpy sci-fi/crime thriller, which I enjoyed the hell out of first time round. The second time, however, I couldn't help noticing what an enormous piece of crap it was. Characters didn't captivate me, the story didn't excite me, and the writing style didn't particularly make me envy Mr. Brin. I struggled to get through it, and it was due to sheer pigheadedness that I managed it.
Another, more complex example, is my current read, Jose Saramago's semi-apocalyptic Blindness, which was one of the best books I read in early '04. This time round, though, it just doesn't do it for me. The aforementioned complexity lies in the following: I still clearly recognise the quality of the writing, and the importance of the premise and it's execution, but the book itself, as a whole, kind of bores me this time. Take the long, strung together sentences, and the namelessness of the main characters; these are gimmicks I so very much enjoyed first time round, because they put you in the shoes of the blind and helpless characters - they simply annoy the pants off me now. I find myself skimming and skipping more and more often, and still this book doesn't seem to want to end. Yet again, pigheadedness shall prevail.
So, is this because it's a reread? Seems unlikely, because the bulk of this year's rereads went down fine. Have my tastes shifted away from these specific books? Could be; I got slightly older, and slightly more mature and experienced in the ways of life. Or are first impressions not always as correct as we think they are? That, the first time around, you are so excited about the author, or the premise of the book, that you tend to forget about the minor (and perhaps major) annoyances?
And, perhaps more importantly, which impression is correct; the first or the second one?
Who knows?
Cheers
2 Comments:
They are both correct.
It's like watching a thriller for the 1st time. You don't know what's gonna happen, so the thrill is there. Then you watch it the 2nd time, and you already know the story. So you start paying more attention to the details.
Take a blonde bombshell as another example. She's nice to look at. But later, when the novelty wears off, you find out that she's nothing but a dumb blonde with a stunning package.
Oh by the way, my roommate recently saw a sneak preview of Everything is Illuminated. She said it was weird. Good kind of weird though.
Hey, a comment! Thanks, dude.
I think you're right, though. The novelty being gone coupled with being slightly older and probably in a different mood resulted in me not really enjoying these books.
Thanks for the info on Everything Is Illuminated.
Cheers
Post a Comment
<< Home