Do Some Books Require One to be a Certain Age to Appreciate?

[Dark Muse]

I have often heard people make comments about how certain books they read they did not think they would have enjoyed or full appreciated if they had read them when they were younger but I never really grasped this idea because I have always been an avid reader, and was one of those weirdo's that actually got excited about required reading in school and most those books that people hated when they had to read them in high school I usually always really enjoyed so I never really had that experience where I felt that there was a time in my life in which I would not have been able to enjoy a particular book.

In one of my rare moments of deciding to be seasonal with my reading I had started reading Independence Day by Richard Ford this month which is a Pulitzer winning book and it is actually the sequel to the book The Sportswriter, which I had not read but I feel that Independence Day is one of those books that can stand upon its own, and I did not truly feel like I was lost or confused reading it or missing some essential part of the book.

Independence Day follow the life of Frank Bascombe a former sportswriter who now ( I believe he is in his 50s in Independence Day) is a divorced man working in the reality business and going through what he calls "The Existence Period"

And while I cannot fault the writing of the book. I do not think it was truly poorly written or a bad book, nor can I truly say that I hated the book but I found myself making the choice of giving up on it because of the fact I felt that I really was not getting thing out of it. I could not truly relate to anything happening within the book, I did not connect with any of the characters and while I did not dislike them, I did not truly care about them either. I found myself just reading the book for the sake of reading it but nothing about it really moved me or spoke to me one way or the other.

This got me to start thinking, if in fact this was one of those cases in which my complete disconnect from the book was related to my age and if indeed this is a book that can be better appreciated by those of an older generation, and I remember while I was reading it I was thinking that I thought my mom might actually enjoy the book and I actually borrowed the book from her (but she had not read it yet) because she decided she wanted to read all of the Pulitzer winning books, and so she has a bunch she had already bought and we are always making jokes about the fact that most of them that she has read so far she does not enjoy very much because they are quite unlike what she normally reads. So reading the book I was thinking, hey here is a Pulitzer she might actually like.

[MANICHAEAN]

Dear Dark Muse
As one well and truly into his dotage, be assured that age and preferred reading are inextricably linked. For example, as a 6th former the only D.H.Lawrence I ever read was "Lady C" for obvious reasons.

About 3 months ago I picked up "Women In Love" in a charity shop for one pound and now partake of his other works in the manner of consuming a fine cognac.

Best regards
M.

[MarkBastable]

I agree with Manichean. One should be very very old before one reads DHLawrence. So old, in fact, that one has read absolutely every other book available, which'll mean it's going to have to be Lawrence or taking up auto-acupuncture. And even then, it might be preferable to reach for the needles.

I don't think school children should be made to read Lear, Richard III or Cleopatra, because there's stuff going on in there that you're very unlikely to understand until you've done things in the world.

And no one older than seven or younger than seventy should read Winnie the Pooh. If you parenthesise your life with it like that, you might regard it with boundless misty affection. If you read it anywhere in the middle, you'll probably be made to feel nauseous.

[ChicagoReader]

I do think there are exceptions in this. There are always younger souls that are able to appreciate high literature, no matter the theme. But, I think age can only help. If you connected with and loved a book at 18 I think reading that book again twenty years later would result in a deeper respect. This is only my personal speculation as I myself am still quite young but I have to believe that with more years comes more experiences that will allow one to relate to a more broad range of issues.

[hanzklein]

I don't think school children should be made to read Lear, Richard III or Cleopatra, because there's stuff going on in there that you're very unlikely to understand until you've done things in the world.


Says who? A select few may be able to relate, and that's worth it. I know I understood those plays in high school. If we had been forced to read young adult romance novels on the other hand, I would've banged my head against my desk until I lost consciousness.

[ZTay]

I think intellect and experience before the ticking of a certain amount of clock strokes. But I think absolutely some books require seasoning before properly appreciating. Maybe even just certain times of your life.

[MarkBastable]

Says who? A select few may be able to relate, and that's worth it. I know I understood those plays in high school. If we had been forced to read young adult romance novels on the other hand, I would've banged my head against my desk until I lost consciousness.

Says me, obviously. If you look slightly to the left of the message, you'll see my name there. That means I said it.

And who mentioned adult romance novels? I was thinking more along the lines that school children should be directed towards Henry IV and V, Julius Caesar and Midsummer Night's Dream. However, I'll adjust the generalisation.

I don't think school children should be made to read Lear, Richard III or Cleopatra, because there's stuff going on in there that you're very unlikely to understand until you've done things in the world. Except Hanzklein, who is very likely to get it, and in recognition of whose cognitive brilliance the national syllabus should risk everyone else in the class being turned off Shakespeare for life.

[PabloQ]

DM,
Great question. I think you are truly fortunate to enjoy what you read at a young age. What I've found is that experience and maturity helps in connecting to the themes in the literature one reads. In many cases, I find the language of various periods making more sense the older I get. Recently, I reread Ivanhoe by Sir Walter Scott. When I was a teenager, it was wonderful adventure story, but I can remember struggling against the language at times. This time, the language wasn't concerned and was much more sensitive of the treatment and themes surrounding Isaac the Jew and his daughter. The level to which the romantic relationship between Rebecca and Ivanhoe would be appalling to the readers of the time was much clearer to me as an adult reader that it ever would have been when I was younger.

[stlukesguild]

I don't think school children should be made to read Lear, Richard III or Cleopatra, because there's stuff going on in there that you're very unlikely to understand until you've done things in the world. Except Hanzklein, who is very likely to get it...

Little Hans didn't get it then... and still doesn't. Otherwise he wouldn't be so damned sure that Ulysses is the greatest work of literature ever penned by mankind.:smilewinkgrin:

Now JBI... he might have got it then... in spite of the fact that English was already his second or third language.

[Drkshadow03]

You know, in one of my grad classes a professor mentioned that you have to be over 40 to appreciate Henry James. I actually really liked much of his work that we read (although I seemed to like his earlier work more than his later stuff); I also seemed to be the only one in the class who liked any of the works Henry James wrote.

[Ole Miss Rebel]

I believe Catcher in the Rye is best appreciated when you identify less with Holden and view it more sagaciously.

[hanzklein]

I don't think school children should be made to read Lear, Richard III or Cleopatra, because there's stuff going on in there that you're very unlikely to understand until you've done things in the world. Except Hanzklein, who is very likely to get it...

Little Hans didn't get it then... and still doesn't. Otherwise he wouldn't be so damned sure that Ulysses is the greatest work of literature ever penned by mankind.:smilewinkgrin:

Now JBI... he might have got it then... in spite of the fact that English was already his second or third language.
I'm confused what any of this has to do with my post.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't think there can be any set age for when someone should read something, but I definitely think one needs to reach a certain maturity level to appreciate high-literature. Hell, I'm 25 and just now able to appreciate Dickens. If I had to read it in high school, I would have absolutely hated it.

As for Shakespeare, I don't think many high schoolers have reached the maturity level to appreciate Shakespeare's more difficult works. Frankly, I don't think Shakespeare needs to be taught beyond one of his plays and some of his sonnets.

[Calidore]

And no one older than seven or younger than seventy should read Winnie the Pooh. If you parenthesise your life with it like that, you might regard it with boundless misty affection. If you read it anywhere in the middle, you'll probably be made to feel nauseous.

Disagree strongly. I reread these in my late twenties and enjoyed them even more than I had as a child. Eeyore's humor, especially, went right over my head when I was younger.

[logophile]

There are certainly things that a younger person will miss out on in a lot of books or wont truly feel the weight of. Thomas Hardy's loving description of Tess of The D'Urbervilles takes on a whole new mood when you're older. When you're young it's just a description of a pretty girl. When you're older, you realise that Hardy's description has very erotic undertones.