# Never Go Back



## yngvi (May 2, 2008)

Novels I thought were great but were useless when re-read years later.
(apologies for offending)

Little Fuzzy - H Beam Piper

The Wanderer - Fritz Leiber

A Scanner Darkly - Philip Dick

Anyone else go back somewhere they really shouldn't have?


----------



## Purdy Bear (May 7, 2008)

You have time to re-read books!  

Theres a few I wish I hadn't read the first time round, but with an ever growing pile of about 70 books to read, I just don't have time for any re-reads.  

I'm afraid to say "Shadowmancer", and should I say it "The Dark Materials"  are on my scrap pile.  Both were way to dark for my inner child to cope with.  LOL


Awaits for the mountain of Philip Pullman fans to send me to Coventry.


----------



## The Ace (May 7, 2008)

To each his own PB, I didn't think much of them either.

As for re-reads, it has to be Sven Hassel, great during my nihilistic teenage years, over-gory and cynical now.


----------



## Delvo (May 8, 2008)

The Anything Of Shannara... I read the first 7 books of the series in high school and college (the first time I was at college) and loved them, but hadn't had much exposure to fantasy before and have since then, and in all of the more recent context the Shannara books have lost their uniqueness to me.

We All Died At Breakaway Station... a little-known novel by little-known author Richard C. Meredith. My father had a large science fiction book collection which I only ever read a few of, and this is one of them. It's a great "desperate last stand against horrendous odds to hold out for one tiny but important success before losing everything" story. But that story is only novella length; it got puffed up into a novel by the addition of filler scenes that weren't really related to it, and most of those were porn scenes that seemed to have been written by someone about 12 years old. Getting past the junk was just too much work.


----------



## Culhwch (May 8, 2008)

For me it's Feist. Midkemia was my introduction to fantasy, but when I went back to revisit the books they just seemed so ordinary compared with everything that has come since...


----------



## j d worthington (May 8, 2008)

I've got to admit, this has never been much of a problem for me; in fact, I'm not sure I've ever quite had it happen. I may find a work doesn't hold up as well, but I don't ever recall having one so thoroughly disappoint me that I regretted revisiting it. Generally, I find that, with my shift in experience and approach, I find other levels on which to appreciate it, rather than the reverse. I don't know whether this means I'm extremely lucky in the books I read, or whether the critical judgment I've developed over the years is completely at fault (though, to be honest, I seriously doubt the latter), but whatever it is, I'm rather glad this has proven to be the case....


----------



## Connavar (May 8, 2008)

I have never reread a book so 



I plan to reread  Count of Monte Cristo and The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy so i will see in a week or two if its true to never go back to your old favorits.


----------



## Foxbat (May 8, 2008)

A lot of folk have similar feelings about films they re-watch. Fact is - neither the film nor book has changed - it's the person's perspective through the march of time that has moved on. 

When re-reading (or re-watching) I try to look through the same eyes I did all those years ago (although, admittedly, I'm getting very close to needing glasses)


----------



## old wallie (May 9, 2008)

I've had this problem from time to time.  The worst experience was with "Citizen of the Galaxy" by Heinlein.  I first read it serialized 50 years ago and recently found a copy in a used book store.  I bought and reread it.

The first time I read it I was really impressed with the different cultures that were explored as well as the message of the story.

This time though, the cultures were not so strange, and the message was a little trite.

This isn't the fault of the book, but the time I have had to live, observe, and think about society.

The adverse can also be true, books I disliked as a teen, now seem to be very insightful.  Reading the Bible, especially "Job" for example.  Why that is, is for another post.


----------



## gully_foyle (May 9, 2008)

Stranger in a Strange Land. What can I say? As a spotty kid I thought it was great. As a crusty adult it just makes me cringe.


----------



## yngvi (May 9, 2008)

Heinlein seems to attract such a loyal following and such acclaim.  I read a lot of his stuff in my teens but just don't dare go back now.  I lost patience with him when I read 'The Day After Tomorrow' which was so racist that I think it would be unpublishable nowadays.  I thought 'Glory Road' was a good read (but in hindsight very sexist and I seem to remember contained a rant about taxation in America) and I remember reading 'Stranger in a Strange Land' and being impressed but remember practically nothing about the book itself.

Apologies to Heinlein Fans

Does anyone remember who wrote 'The Iron Dream'? It was a lampoon novel which was supposed to have been written by Adolph Hitler.


----------



## The Ace (May 9, 2008)

No, after 'Mein Kampf,' I went off Hitler as a writer.  I think he should've read a few books before he decided to write one.


----------



## yngvi (May 9, 2008)

Okay, I just Wiki'ed it.  It was Norman Spinrad (I should have guessed).  Remember 'The Steam Driven Boy' and the short story supposedly written by JG Ballard about the world sublimating to Iodine.

Pure class


----------



## Pyan (May 9, 2008)

yngvi said:


> Apologies to Heinlein Fans



No need for apologies, yngvi - real RAH fans love the books for the story-telling, and appreciate they were written when some of the ideas expressed were not unusual .


----------



## Delvo (May 9, 2008)

One of Heinlein's big few claims to fame was how much he worked against racism, being among the first authors to include sympathizable minorities and minority protagonists, and he didn't just do it once but made a point of doing it repeatedly and explicitly, deliberately and pointedly projecting racism as being very stupid and ignorant. I don't get how your impression could be so thoroughly the opposite of what everyone else considers fact.

When it comes to sex, he's not known for sexism or for working so hard against it; the main Heinleinism on that issue is that he advocated sexual "liberation" and presented various taboo sexual ideas and behaviors out in the open without disdain or condemnation, although not necessarily always particularly positive either.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (May 10, 2008)

In the last couple of years I've had a bit more time for reading so I've been alternating between reading new (to me) books and re-reading old ones - sometimes for the first time in decades. I've been surprised by how well all my old favourites have held up; I didn't really expect that. Of course, since I now write as well as read I've become more conscious of stylistic issues and have spotted more flaws, but I still enjoy them. 

What I have noticed is that I still most enjoy the relatively short, fast-paced novels which grip you so tightly that it's an effort to put the book down - and a lot of those were written in the 1950s and 60s. Too much modern SFF is over-long, over-padded, and pedestrian IMO. Some authors seem more concerned with achieving literary respectability than with writing a rattling good yarn!


----------



## yngvi (May 10, 2008)

I'm in the same boat as you.  With new authors I find I have to kiss a lot of frogs to get a prince, and for sure having read a lot I am probably more discerning and find it hard to find anything which comes across as fresh.

With re-reading, this is about 80% of what I do.  Sometimes stuff holds up really well in all respects, sometimes I can see the flaws but my original liking for the work allows me to accept them, and just sometimes I am rather disappointed.  Some authors I wouldn't even try again (like Michael Moorcock).  I read everything he wrote at the time but even then I could see the limitations of his plotting, charectorisation and prose but was carried along by the flood of ideas he had.  

I wonder what I would make of 'The Jewel in the Skull' if I read it now?

Has anyone re-visited Moorcock all these years later?


----------



## Anthony G Williams (May 10, 2008)

The only Moorcock books from his early years I've kept are the Elric series. I haven't read them in years, but intend to at some point: I think they are true classics of original fantasy. After that, he churned out a lot of potboilers.


----------



## Connavar (May 10, 2008)

Delvo said:


> One of Heinlein's big few claims to fame was how much he worked against racism, being among the first authors to include sympathizable minorities and minority protagonists, and he didn't just do it once but made a point of doing it repeatedly and explicitly, deliberately and pointedly projecting racism as being very stupid and ignorant. I don't get how your impression could be so thoroughly the opposite of what everyone else considers fact.
> 
> When it comes to sex, he's not known for sexism or for working so hard against it; the main Heinleinism on that issue is that he advocated sexual "liberation" and presented various taboo sexual ideas and behaviors out in the open without disdain or condemnation, although not necessarily always particularly positive either.


'


I think the reason is that for a SF writer of his time his stories was very social and political. Those things that are sexism in todays world was totaly different in his time.

I doubt he was one of few who has old fashioned views of women in his time but since he is so famous and wrote so many political,social SF people, he gets diss. 

Personally i think his stories are timeless. Some of his issues are still current.


----------



## Amalthea (May 10, 2008)

yngvi said:


> Anyone else go back somewhere they really shouldn't have?


_The Stand_ by Stephen King.
I remember how great I thought that book was when I was a teenager.
When I read it years later, I realized that the characters were one-dimensional and seemed to be created by someone with the depth of a 12-year old.

No offense intended toward Stephen King fans and 12-year olds.


----------



## Nesacat (May 25, 2008)

David Eddings' Belgariad and Mallorean books. I loved them to bits when I read them in school and I still recommend them to people who are starting to read fantasy and want something easy to start with. It's not that I don't like the books anymore of think they are bad books. I think I've just grown out of them.


----------



## Quokka (May 26, 2008)

Similar story with Eddings, I reread the Sparhawk series a few years ago and knew then that I wouldn't be rereading Eddings again anytime soon. Like you said good books if you're just starting out reading, Harry Potter probably plays a similar role now but there's certainly a lot better reads out there.

I've basically stopped rereading books at all for now, just too many new books I want to try.


----------

