I've been thinking lately about why I enjoy rereading some books and not others. I recently borrowed six of the Dragonlance novels (annotated) to reread for nostalgia. I read them way back in middle school and high school and remember enjoying them immensely. The other night I finished reading about 3/4 of the first book, when I suddenly became bored with it. I skimmed forward to read through the marginalia and glance at important bits revolving around Raistlin, then decided I was done reading, at least the first three novels.
Why can I reread some works, like Bujold's Miles books, Pratchett's Discworld series, or Lovecraft's short stories, while I can't be arsed to read some books a second time, even though I enjoyed the first read? I realized today that the difference is in why I enjoyed the piece. Some writers are good at creating stories, while others are good at crafting language (a few are good at both). The former create an interesting world and series of events that pull you along, always making you want to see what happens next; however, when you already know what happens, you don't have quite as much interest. The latter authors are interesting for how they tell a story, not necessarily what story they are telling. I read these authors because I like to read their prose; I enjoy ingesting the words.
Authors that are interesting for their method, rather than their goal, I can read over and over again. Pratchett's satire is so humourous and insightful that I can read it repeatedly, no matter what he is saying. Lovecraft's skill at evoking indescribable horror and a sense of the fantastic is what attracts me to his work, not his overarching plotlines. I suppose it's much like being able to listen to Sam Jackson or James Earl Jones read a phonebook; it doesn't matter what they are saying, so much as how they say it.
So, while out today, I picked up a collection of Lovecraft short stories that I didn't already own, and the next three novels in the Discworld series. I also bought Anne Rice's Mummy, or Ramses the Damned, but I don't recall if I loved that book for the story or the prose; I shall find out, I suppose.
In other news, I've been infected by British English. It started years ago, when I found certain turns of phrase, spellings, or grammatical conventions to be interesting or more reasonable. I am afraid it is spreading, though. Hopefully I won't start replacing Zs with Ss.
Posts
1 comment:
Personally, I read for both. I don't know that you can break it down in either category, largely because there are books I've read for either. Sure, there are times the two come together (you mention Pratchett, so I'll just assume you've read Good Omens, the perfect example), but it's somewhat rare. I've read Clive Barker for years, mainly because his writin is brilliant. The stories he writes may not always be, but his words are vivid, nearly alive in their shape and form, giving breath to things in a way few can. But I've also read a number of stories that were poorly written, but interesting. It's almost like asking which you prefer in a game: Gameplay or story. It's great when the two bridge the gap to reach each other, but more often than not they rarely meet.
Post a Comment