I've finished "The Dispossessed" and while it's not my favorite LeGuin, it wasn't really disappointing, either. I'm intrigued by your strategy of putting down books that don't compel you to keep reading them. I probably need to incorporate that into my reading regimen. But it is so hard. For so long I've made it a point of pride to finish any book I started, with only a couple of exceptions (e.g., a biography of Kant, which . . . well, what was I thinking?). To not finish what I've started? Almost inconceivable. I'll let you know what happens with "A Wrinkle in Time."
Such a good post, D.A.! I had this same encounter with WRINKLE when I re-read it as a college student for a Children's Lit class and found it insufferable. At that time of my re-reading, I was still a teen, just a few years older than my first reading. What was going on?! I felt a void, like a literal void, between the enchantment of my first reading and the disappointment of my re-reading. I rushed to fill that void with analysis, mainly because it was better than sitting with this new kind of grief that I'm sure can be named in the German language. So I really like your conclusions: all times in our lives, all nows, are the right times, the right nows. And to use my line of thinking, maybe we are *supposed* to have those uncomfortable new voids between then and now-- and not mark them as "growth," but simply as "a new or different experience." Like, and here's a leap, the Grand Canyon. I'm sure it looked amazing eons ago as a fully intact, tree- or dinosaur -filled piece of flat land. Now, the chasm time has carved is all we know of that land, and it is awe-inspiring. But we'd never point at that gorgeous chasm and call it a void. We don't mourn the loss of something once whole and flat. It just IS, and we're pleased to engage it in the here and now.
Whoa, this got DEEP. Thanks for letting me think out loud here. Great post.
I felt the same way about Wrinkle in Time. When I read it as a young girl, I loved it. I reread it a few years back, and wondered why I loved it as a kid.
I remember reading "Orlando" by Virginia Woolf when I was in college, and it was my favourite book. (I loved everything about it). Years passed, and only after I graduated ad university I thought about the book again. It was almost like a wave of nostalgia had hit me. I picked it up, and as I started reading, the excitement turned into disappointment. All the things I once loved felt somewhat fake. I felt like now that I was older and looking at it with fresh eyes, the story felt hollow and disappointing. But I learnt that the past should sometimes stay in the past, and we should just cherish the moment :)
I love this comment. I haven't read Orlando. I loves Mrs. Dalloway, but 'To the Lighthouse' is one of those I keep picking up and putting down. But more importantly, you're right--just cherish the moment!
I'm glad that you found your way to loving Melville. I also completely agree with the notion of meeting books as akin to meeting people, and the fact that timing can be critical. I never liked Salinger, and I don't think that any amount of time will convince me otherwise, but I've also experienced the "let-down" affect that you describe here, though not especially with Wrinkle in Time--I think for me, different parts of the book spoke to me when I was a kid and when I returned to the book a few years ago. In any case, thanks for making me think. Especially on a Friday afternoon!
Finding my way to Melville was a struggle that was well worth it! I do find myself thinking not so much about Salinger as I do Holden as a character and what what he was experiencing and processing--but I know it's a book that brings a lot of mixed feelings.
This post makes me ask a slightly different (though related) question: ergo, should I read "A Wrinkle in Time" for the first time? I've known about this book for literally decades, and as a devotee of science fiction from my pre-teen years until now, this has always been one of those books that I felt I should read. I mean, just its reputation alone warranted some engagement, right? Fast forward to present times and I've become someone who pretty much only buys books from Daedalus Books, the massive remainders outlet. So, when they offered a boxed set of all the "Wrinkle in Time" books (there are three? four? I can't recall and the books are buried somewhere in another house) I eagerly purchased a set. Finally, I would read a book (or books) I should have read many years ago. I still haven't done so, and now I learn that possibly the books "don't hold up." Yikes. I've also become someone who is old enough that I've become painfully aware that I won't ever be able to read all the books I hope to read: I just don't have enough years left on my timeline, even supposing I somehow cruise past the "expected life-span" marker and garner an extra decade or so. As such, every book I choose to read now means there's another book that won't get read. How to choose, then, which books deserve my attention now and which books can be put off until later, perhaps indefinitely? Will "A Wrinkle in Time," a book I've "planned" to read for years, make the cut? Or will my boxed set remain boxed and unread? On the one hand, initial readings of this book seem to go well; maybe it's just not a great book to re-read. On the other hand, do those first readings have to take place when a reader is much younger than I am? Have I reached an age when my first reading really would be more akin to a subsequent reading and therefore disappointing. I'm really conflicted, I must say. Therefore, I will delay answering this question and for now continue reading another s.f. book I've always meant to read: Ursula K. LeGuin's "The Dispossessed." So far, I'm really liking it.
This is...great. Weirdly, "The Dispossessed" was a book like that for me--one that I had never read. To be clear, I love LeGuin. A lot. But I did not care for "The Dispossessed" and felt almost guilty about it. But to your question--I hear you about (ironically, I guess) time. A few years ago, I started putting books down for the first time, knowing that there's only so much time. And I would just keep picking things up until I couldn't put them down. So, should you read 'A Wrinkle in Time'? (I don't know--this is another strange territory for me: not saying to people "Oh wow, you have to read this!). But should you read, say, the first few pages, but only if it's there, in your house, waiting.
I've finished "The Dispossessed" and while it's not my favorite LeGuin, it wasn't really disappointing, either. I'm intrigued by your strategy of putting down books that don't compel you to keep reading them. I probably need to incorporate that into my reading regimen. But it is so hard. For so long I've made it a point of pride to finish any book I started, with only a couple of exceptions (e.g., a biography of Kant, which . . . well, what was I thinking?). To not finish what I've started? Almost inconceivable. I'll let you know what happens with "A Wrinkle in Time."
Such a good post, D.A.! I had this same encounter with WRINKLE when I re-read it as a college student for a Children's Lit class and found it insufferable. At that time of my re-reading, I was still a teen, just a few years older than my first reading. What was going on?! I felt a void, like a literal void, between the enchantment of my first reading and the disappointment of my re-reading. I rushed to fill that void with analysis, mainly because it was better than sitting with this new kind of grief that I'm sure can be named in the German language. So I really like your conclusions: all times in our lives, all nows, are the right times, the right nows. And to use my line of thinking, maybe we are *supposed* to have those uncomfortable new voids between then and now-- and not mark them as "growth," but simply as "a new or different experience." Like, and here's a leap, the Grand Canyon. I'm sure it looked amazing eons ago as a fully intact, tree- or dinosaur -filled piece of flat land. Now, the chasm time has carved is all we know of that land, and it is awe-inspiring. But we'd never point at that gorgeous chasm and call it a void. We don't mourn the loss of something once whole and flat. It just IS, and we're pleased to engage it in the here and now.
Whoa, this got DEEP. Thanks for letting me think out loud here. Great post.
I felt the same way about Wrinkle in Time. When I read it as a young girl, I loved it. I reread it a few years back, and wondered why I loved it as a kid.
I totally get it. It really bothered me for a few days, like something horrible had happened.
I remember reading "Orlando" by Virginia Woolf when I was in college, and it was my favourite book. (I loved everything about it). Years passed, and only after I graduated ad university I thought about the book again. It was almost like a wave of nostalgia had hit me. I picked it up, and as I started reading, the excitement turned into disappointment. All the things I once loved felt somewhat fake. I felt like now that I was older and looking at it with fresh eyes, the story felt hollow and disappointing. But I learnt that the past should sometimes stay in the past, and we should just cherish the moment :)
I love this comment. I haven't read Orlando. I loves Mrs. Dalloway, but 'To the Lighthouse' is one of those I keep picking up and putting down. But more importantly, you're right--just cherish the moment!
Loved loved loved this! Have sent you an email fyi!
I filled out the submission form. Should I send as an email? (Thanks for reading!)
Sorry if that wasn’t clear. I’ve already sent you an email requesting it in a google doc if possible
Just shared with your email. If you don't get it or need anything, let me know.
Have received your doc by the way, will get back to a bit later in the week
Thank you!
On it.
I'm glad that you found your way to loving Melville. I also completely agree with the notion of meeting books as akin to meeting people, and the fact that timing can be critical. I never liked Salinger, and I don't think that any amount of time will convince me otherwise, but I've also experienced the "let-down" affect that you describe here, though not especially with Wrinkle in Time--I think for me, different parts of the book spoke to me when I was a kid and when I returned to the book a few years ago. In any case, thanks for making me think. Especially on a Friday afternoon!
Finding my way to Melville was a struggle that was well worth it! I do find myself thinking not so much about Salinger as I do Holden as a character and what what he was experiencing and processing--but I know it's a book that brings a lot of mixed feelings.
This post makes me ask a slightly different (though related) question: ergo, should I read "A Wrinkle in Time" for the first time? I've known about this book for literally decades, and as a devotee of science fiction from my pre-teen years until now, this has always been one of those books that I felt I should read. I mean, just its reputation alone warranted some engagement, right? Fast forward to present times and I've become someone who pretty much only buys books from Daedalus Books, the massive remainders outlet. So, when they offered a boxed set of all the "Wrinkle in Time" books (there are three? four? I can't recall and the books are buried somewhere in another house) I eagerly purchased a set. Finally, I would read a book (or books) I should have read many years ago. I still haven't done so, and now I learn that possibly the books "don't hold up." Yikes. I've also become someone who is old enough that I've become painfully aware that I won't ever be able to read all the books I hope to read: I just don't have enough years left on my timeline, even supposing I somehow cruise past the "expected life-span" marker and garner an extra decade or so. As such, every book I choose to read now means there's another book that won't get read. How to choose, then, which books deserve my attention now and which books can be put off until later, perhaps indefinitely? Will "A Wrinkle in Time," a book I've "planned" to read for years, make the cut? Or will my boxed set remain boxed and unread? On the one hand, initial readings of this book seem to go well; maybe it's just not a great book to re-read. On the other hand, do those first readings have to take place when a reader is much younger than I am? Have I reached an age when my first reading really would be more akin to a subsequent reading and therefore disappointing. I'm really conflicted, I must say. Therefore, I will delay answering this question and for now continue reading another s.f. book I've always meant to read: Ursula K. LeGuin's "The Dispossessed." So far, I'm really liking it.
This is...great. Weirdly, "The Dispossessed" was a book like that for me--one that I had never read. To be clear, I love LeGuin. A lot. But I did not care for "The Dispossessed" and felt almost guilty about it. But to your question--I hear you about (ironically, I guess) time. A few years ago, I started putting books down for the first time, knowing that there's only so much time. And I would just keep picking things up until I couldn't put them down. So, should you read 'A Wrinkle in Time'? (I don't know--this is another strange territory for me: not saying to people "Oh wow, you have to read this!). But should you read, say, the first few pages, but only if it's there, in your house, waiting.