flight paths discussion

Do you think it's possible to accurately rate a book 5, 10, even 20 years after reading it? Do you believe you can do so in an unfair and unbiased way? How do you think memory and experience influence your rating of a book? Is your criteria for rating these books different from a book you finished just yesterday?

Can our response to a book ever be fair? Its so visceral, and in time, when the details have faded and we have incorporated our interpretation, all we are left with is our memory of how the book impacted us.

When I assess a book I have read in the past I automatically call up the circumstances surrounding it. The edition, the cover and the feel of the book, whether it came from the library and where was I when reading it all give me a clue so I can enter that world again.I may need to be reminded about the details of an issue or even the names of the main characters, but the tone and style can be recalled, and the effect of the book on my awareness.This provides me with the basis of my assessment.
If I want to be thorough, I go back to the source.

This is the best argument for having a real as opposed to virtual library, for keeping books around. Its like having your old friends ready to visit. Just looking at the titles snugged up on their proper shelves reaffirms their place in my life and acts as a kind of mnemotic.

I find my reviews of books I have read and stored for re-reading often very short. Thus to review it again on a subsequent re-reading may be helpful to someone, and remind me why I kept it to re-read.

My associated memories are not so sharp, and a book provides a good reference point for comparing the environments. The only constant in change is change, to borrow a phrase recently supplied (or even resupplied) to me.

Interesting question! I've added every book I can remember reading (except ones as a child, unless they were my absolute favorites, etc.) and I generally give all books a 3 - average - unless they really stuck with me. I tend to go back and increase or decrease the ratings, too, as I ponder the books for awhile. For instance, my initial reaction to "Lolita" was a 3, but the more I thought about it, I increased it.

Personally, I wish we had a 10 point scale.

I have rated some books from past reading, but without a review, since I may still retain the general feeling I got from reading a book, but not the details that go into an informative review.

In most cases, I would say that my rating of an "old book" would be more reliable than my attempt to review it based on memory.
I have only recently joined GR, but I find that it is quite difficult to capture the feel of a book that I read even a couple of months previously.
I recently rated "Homo Faber" five stars and then accepted a challenge from a friend to review it.
I had probably read it over twenty years ago, and couldn't remember why I had rated it so highly.
But I thoroughly loved the re-reading experience and probably would have rated it more highly if I could have.
That said, our taste changes between youth and adulthood, and even within adulthood.
I am hoping to re-read Lolita pretty soon to see whether being the father of 12 and 15 year old daughters changes my perspective.

I would find seven or nine stars even harder to rate by memory.
The more stars, the greater the precision, and it's the forensic precision that I lose over time.
Five stars is relatively easy to plug an old impression into.

I was really only addressing the original question about old books: Is it fair to rate books read in the past?
New books would be fresh in your mind, and 7 or 9 would be OK.
But old books tend to fade from memory, and the precision would be hard to do justice to.

I used to be one of those pushing for half stars. Now I think if people used the system in place, it would work pretty well. Unfortunately, some people use the stars to mean different things. But when you run the cursor over the star space a pop-up tells you what it's worth.

And to loop back to this thread's discussion, the same is sometimes true for rating a book read in the past. I sometimes have tremendous memory about a past book-& those are the books I rate, especially when my memory is not just about the plot or characters but about what I thought.

Even if the rating describes how I felt then, & not necessarily how I might feel now, I think it's accurate. If I read it again & felt differently, who's to say that that reaction would be more accurate.

For example, I had much more patience & understanding of 19th century writers, especially writers like Hardy, in my 20s. Is my impatience now a sign of maturity or of too much internet & general push for speed? Maybe I understood some things better 20 or 30 years ago than I do now.

And again, as I said, if I only have a vague memory, I won't write a review but often my memory is so vivid I can write a review (even including quotes!) write out of the words of my past.

Ellie wrote: "I used to be one of those pushing for half stars. Now I think if people used the system in place, it would work pretty well. Unfortunately, some people use the stars to mean different things...."

Thanks Ellie for getting us back on topic.

Turning to your example of Hardy, who I read in my late 20's. While I didnt like Tess much, I hate hate hated Jude the Obscure,what it said about life was nothing I wanted to hear. I forced myself to finish it, hoping that the ending would redeem all that sufferring. I was depressed for weeks. Did it discourage me from reading more Hardy? YES

Would I react the same reading it now? Maybe not, but more likely I wouldnt even attempt it, no longer feeling obliged.

I wish I had a tremendous memory. What I retain is how I felt about a book, the level of engagement and my emotional response. Even Master and M...which was such a delightful amazement to me when I discovered it over 20 years ago now. This one I want to read again. I hope youre planning to give a fuller review having just had the pleasure.

*smile* I'm not actually finished the book but when I am it's definitely one I'll give a full review to.

Although it's a difficult book to describe. I seem to react to it (almost like an amoeba!) very viscerally. I have to figure out how to translate this reaction to a more abstract, verbal response! :)

There's something too about reading an unknown book, found by the direction of our private muse, by someone we have never heard of, as opposed to reading a book whose reputation is known to us.
Somehow I think it is harder to read something about which we have preconceptions that need to be shed before we can enter into a genuine relationship with a book. The difference between being told something is amazing, or terrible for that matter, and discovering that for ourselves as we read.

And Ellie, you've actually done well already in describing M&M, difficult and amoeba like, a punch in gut. Not an intellectual exercise only.

Some comments in this thread have been deleted and moved to this thread: http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/5...

Magdelanye wrote: "There's something too about reading an unknown book, found by the direction of our private muse, by someone we have never heard of, as opposed to reading a book whose reputation is known to us.
So..."

Thanks-it was so so so hard!