Title says it all, I'll go first. Terry Brook's Shannara series. I first read them around age 12-13, fresh off finishing The Lord of the Rings and I was on the hunt for something to scratch my fantasy itch. I loved them, and read them as fast as the local library loaned them to me. The other day I picked up a copy of The Sword of Shannara expecting to feel nostalgic reading it again, the way I often do when I pick up an old printed friend. Nope, complete disappointment. The plot was no longer satisfying, the writing sub-par, the world a veiled rip-off of better writer's work...I didn't even bother finishing it.
I usually do the opposite. I don't like a book, take another look years later and it grows on me. The only book I've turned against is Judy Blume's Blubber. Loved it as a child. Thought it had a natural undidactic tone. But I sat down and analyzed it for a blog post and realized that the character of Linda (Blubber) is unfairly treated not just by the characters but by the author. I don't think Blume herself has much sympathy for Linda and ensured through every detail and metaphor that she comes across as an unlikeable goof deserving of her outcast state. She identifies more with the character of Jill (who we are told goes along with the torment but actually appears more catalyst.) Jill even shares her initials with the author. And even though Jill is one of the sourest child characters created her metaphors are angled to keep her in the best light. It could be the only children's book with the moral - look out for your own ass. Lol.
The Narnia books. Kind of unreadable for me now. Didn't much like rereading Edith Wharton's The Age of Innocence either. I loved it in high school but now I think, why do I give a damn about all these rich people?
Just about any gothic romance I ever read between the ages of 12 and 22, including, and perhaps especially, Jane Eyre.
I have some I read as a kid that scared me to death. The Amityville Horror comes to mind. I've thought about rereading it, but I know it's shlock, and so I don't. I want to remember that book as the paperback I read on the screened in porch, and all the flies were buzzing about because it was summer, and I was terrified. So I don't hate it now but I'm pretty sure I would. I reread Shadowkeep and somehow I still liked it even though Alan Dean Foster's writing is uh . . . yeah. I forgive him! (I think that's a novel taken from a video game. One of the characters is a talking kangaroo.) I read this one about possessions (because I like books like that) and slowly realized that I'd already read it in some previous decade. It was so stupid. I remember this line. "Your mother and I have been talking and we believe you have a poltergeist." I almost threw the book. Really. I usually start the windup and somehow catch myself at the last minute. I don't remember the name of it because it's not in my finished reading list. I keep thinking of those parents and hear "Serenity now!" for some reason. It was so fake. I did get through it the first time though, way back when. There's no accounting for taste, haha.
The only books in my library that I don't like are the Twilight Series. A friend bought them as a gift, knowing that I love vampires. I slugged my way through each badly written volume, frothing mad about sparkly vegan vampires. I only read them because they were a gift, and it's the same reason they still sit in my library. My friend had the best of intentions, and I do believe "it's the thought that counts".
Used to love Lord Of The Rings when I was a youngster - but my tastes changed and fantasy just isn't my genre anymore. Adored the novel Mother London by Michael Moorcock when I was young - but revisited it recently and found it just feels like a collection of well-written sections with no interesting plot holding it all together.
Most Heinlein. The ideas are great... Well, some of them. When RAH was young he was ultra-liberal, even radical, but settled into a middle-aged conservatism and settled hard. I did just the opposite. The SF concepts are still cool, but the writing... the dialogue, the existence of only four characters (older successful male author-insert, older female who agrees with him totally but provides wise minor bits of contrast, younger hot-headed male with potential, younger bright but pinup-worthy female who's down for anything...). Sigh.
I recently attempted to reread The Green Hills of Earth which I remember loving when I was in high school. I closed it at about page five, wondering how I'd ever managed to slog my way through the whole book 50 years ago.
Second that on Heinlen. Catch-22 didn't hold up for me at all. Thought it was great when I was 18, total shit not even a decade later.
Never attempted it a second time, but I think I understood Gravity's Rainbow better the first time around when I was 19 than when I was 45 or so.
I can’t contribute to this thread because I’ve never read a novel twice. Well that’s not quite true; I’ve read the Red Dwarf novels multiple times, but I love them just as much each time.
Never read a novel twice. Wow. There's a... novel idea. I've lost track of the number of times I've re-read some novels.
Once is a colossal effort for me. I just can’t lose myself in a book like I could as a kid. When I read now, about 10% of me is ‘with’ the story and characters, the rest of me is thinking how much my eyes are stinging, how much my arm aches, the fact that I’m hungry or thirsty, that I’ve got to do this or that tomorrow, that I need a piss...
I'll agree that they did not age well, nor the style that is fixated on a McGuffin for each of the books which operate completely independently from each other.
I'm certain this is not an unpopular opinion, but...Divergent. I devoured that as a teen, and while I have not gone back to try again, I have enough recollection of the way the story went to understand that it is not the poetic masterpiece I once thought it was.
Part of the reason I reread favorites is it is so hard to find new books that absorb my interest. Since I learned to read over sixty years ago, I have read tens of thousands of novels (not counting re-reads) and all too often get that "been here, read that" feeling, especially in fiction allied with a particular genre or books that are part of a series. I can't recall offhand the last time I read a book that I truly hated to see come to an end. I know such books out there, though, and I'm looking forward to finding the next one.
Wow! I learned to read about 45 years ago, and I doubt the number of novels I’ve read extend beyond three figures... or anything even close.
Can you say, "Compulsive reader, boys and girls?" I also read fast, at times going through novels the way some folks go through short stories. It's both a gift and a curse.
Ahh, now you see. Speed reading. I’ve never been able to get my head around this reading a novel in a single sitting thing. It’s totally incomprehensible to me. On the rare occasion I’m enjoying a novel enough to read it daily, it will amount to one, maybe two chapters (or about 20 pages if the chapters are too long) last thing at night, in bed. Assuming a 300 page novel, this would mean it would take just over a fortnight to finish. And that would be incredibly good going for me. In truth, it takes closer to a couple of months for me to get through most novels.
When I was in high school I read an SF novel a day, literally. I had a ratty old army jacket that I wore all the time. The left pocket held the next book, the right was the one that I was working on. About lunchtime I'd finish the first one and start on the second. Of course, I also only slept about four hours a night because teenager
Nooo, I'm nowhere near being a speed reader, just a little faster than most folks. I went to school with competitive speed readers. I was not and am not in that category.
