I watched Twilight over the weekend -- I have mixed feelings about both the movie and the book series. It was first introduced to me as "the next Harry Potter" which, if you think about it, completely ruined it from the start. (Thanks Vina)
The thing is, had I never read Harry Potter or set the expectation of comparing it to Harry Potter, I might have enjoyed the experience of reading and watching Twilight more. I'm not even going to get into whether Twilight is a good series or not -- I'm talking purely about how the experience of reading a new book can be completely tainted by past experiences of reading, despite whether or not the new book is a good book.
In life, every experience you go through will emotionally, mentally or physically imprint on your brain and change your perception on everything you experience from that point on. Whether it gives you a new standard to compare, allows you to experience an emotion you've never experienced or imprints a new association in your brain, your personality and your essential being changes at every moment. You are not the same person you were 5 minutes ago.
So imagine how much this applies to reading. Immersing yourself in a book and taking in its poetry, storyline, characters... every contextual item in that book will forever change your view of things when faced with it in the future. Every future book you read from that point on may be read through the eyes of this previous book. Unfair, isn't it? You can't help but unjustly apply certain prejudices and beliefs to stories that deserve a fresh read. So for example, in reading Twilight I was expecting a novel just as action-packed and detailed as Harry Potter with its cultural nomenclature around the wizarding world... but I didn't find anything cleverly written at all. I was expecting a set of whimsical characters with particularities only found in a fantasy book but instead found a group of high school students as bland as the characters on the new 90210 show.
Imagine now if I have never read Harry Potter and the most recent set of books I read was actually the Gossip Girl series. I would look at the Twilight plot, characters and details in a completely different light. I might be more appreciative of the subtle differences in character Stephenie Meyers used to distinguish the centuries-old vampires. I might appreciate the careful illustration of the lush setting that makes up Forks and the Quillote reservation. I would have seen this book in a completely different light.
It almost makes me wonder if the more important question here is whether you should pay more attention to the order of books you read rather than whether or not you read a book at all?
On the other hand, imagine yourself in the position of the author. How do you craft a unique storyline without the influence of other books you've previously read or written? Meyer's made it a point to let her readers know that she did not do any vampire research or reading as to avoid tainting her story with preconceived notions of vampires. But what about her preconceived notions of teenage love, life and loss that she may have accidentally carried over from her previous works? Nothing ever exists in a vacuum.
Anyways, I digress. Maybe we accept the fact that not every book will satiate our thirst for knowledge and amusement instead of dwelling on the time wasted on a reading bad book. Maybe we should look at how that book fits in the grander scheme of things. Reading a bad book gives us a measure to appreciate better books. A long book like the unabridged Les Miserables can give just as lasting of a satisfaction after reading it as a short book like Who Moved My Cheese? Careful depiction of character in classic Jane Austen books will help you appreciate the real-life biographies of the great women of history.
Or maybe I'm looking too much into this. Maybe there is no grander scheme of things when it comes to trying to tie together a library of experiences. Maybe each book is meant to be enjoyed and digested one at a time. We do our best to forget our past prejudices and perceptions and give each book its fighting chance. You read 10 pages and if it's entertaining, you keep going. If boredom strikes or you don't like the author's tone, then maybe you don't waste time and you toss the book and move on. That's what I did with Wicked.
The thing is, had I never read Harry Potter or set the expectation of comparing it to Harry Potter, I might have enjoyed the experience of reading and watching Twilight more. I'm not even going to get into whether Twilight is a good series or not -- I'm talking purely about how the experience of reading a new book can be completely tainted by past experiences of reading, despite whether or not the new book is a good book.
In life, every experience you go through will emotionally, mentally or physically imprint on your brain and change your perception on everything you experience from that point on. Whether it gives you a new standard to compare, allows you to experience an emotion you've never experienced or imprints a new association in your brain, your personality and your essential being changes at every moment. You are not the same person you were 5 minutes ago.
So imagine how much this applies to reading. Immersing yourself in a book and taking in its poetry, storyline, characters... every contextual item in that book will forever change your view of things when faced with it in the future. Every future book you read from that point on may be read through the eyes of this previous book. Unfair, isn't it? You can't help but unjustly apply certain prejudices and beliefs to stories that deserve a fresh read. So for example, in reading Twilight I was expecting a novel just as action-packed and detailed as Harry Potter with its cultural nomenclature around the wizarding world... but I didn't find anything cleverly written at all. I was expecting a set of whimsical characters with particularities only found in a fantasy book but instead found a group of high school students as bland as the characters on the new 90210 show.
Imagine now if I have never read Harry Potter and the most recent set of books I read was actually the Gossip Girl series. I would look at the Twilight plot, characters and details in a completely different light. I might be more appreciative of the subtle differences in character Stephenie Meyers used to distinguish the centuries-old vampires. I might appreciate the careful illustration of the lush setting that makes up Forks and the Quillote reservation. I would have seen this book in a completely different light.
It almost makes me wonder if the more important question here is whether you should pay more attention to the order of books you read rather than whether or not you read a book at all?
On the other hand, imagine yourself in the position of the author. How do you craft a unique storyline without the influence of other books you've previously read or written? Meyer's made it a point to let her readers know that she did not do any vampire research or reading as to avoid tainting her story with preconceived notions of vampires. But what about her preconceived notions of teenage love, life and loss that she may have accidentally carried over from her previous works? Nothing ever exists in a vacuum.
Anyways, I digress. Maybe we accept the fact that not every book will satiate our thirst for knowledge and amusement instead of dwelling on the time wasted on a reading bad book. Maybe we should look at how that book fits in the grander scheme of things. Reading a bad book gives us a measure to appreciate better books. A long book like the unabridged Les Miserables can give just as lasting of a satisfaction after reading it as a short book like Who Moved My Cheese? Careful depiction of character in classic Jane Austen books will help you appreciate the real-life biographies of the great women of history.
Or maybe I'm looking too much into this. Maybe there is no grander scheme of things when it comes to trying to tie together a library of experiences. Maybe each book is meant to be enjoyed and digested one at a time. We do our best to forget our past prejudices and perceptions and give each book its fighting chance. You read 10 pages and if it's entertaining, you keep going. If boredom strikes or you don't like the author's tone, then maybe you don't waste time and you toss the book and move on. That's what I did with Wicked.
3 comments:
i just thought the series went way downhill after book 1. and it is just a teen book series like sweet valley high isnt it? We went through how many books that described a group of girls and their babysitting jobs LOL
but what did get to me was meyers constantly comparing her characters to Jane Eyre and Romeo and Juliet etc and she was like oh yeah theres some Bella in Jane Eyre, uhm no theres some Jane Eyre in Bella not the other way around!! like her characters are classics pshhh..
and i saw this quote from edward's actor on ONTD..SO TRUE
“When I read it I was convinced Stephenie was convinced she was Bella and it was like it was a book that wasn’t supposed to be published. It was like reading her sexual fantasy, especially when she said it was based on a dream and it was like, ‘Oh I’ve had this dream about this really sexy guy,’ and she just writes this book about it. Like some things about Edward are so specific, I was just convinced, like, ‘This woman is mad. She’s completely mad and she’s in love with her own fictional creation.’ And sometimes you would feel uncomfortable reading this thing.”
After watching Wicked I went back to the book and enjoyed it alot more than when i first tried to read it. It does help explain alot of the play. Though I havent finished it either haha.
Your looking too much into this, man. there really cant be an original work of art anymore. i thought twilight had a cliche love plot, no? and isnt it targeted for the teenage audience?
btw, i like the preconceived notions of vampires. :(
dracula is so good!
Post a Comment