Book reviews à la bookworm...The good, the bad, and everything in between.
I'm a re-reader. I admit it, and I'm not ashamed of it. I am a selective re-reader though. I only re-read the books that I liked. And they always seem to improve with time.
No matter how many times I've read a book, there's always something new...Or old, as in my reaction to certain chapters or paragraphs. For example, I always, always, cry at the end of Sherrilyn Kenyon's Fantasy Lover, I just can't help myself. Or, at the end of one of the initial chapters of Marsha Canham's Blood of Roses, I always get the urge to hurl the book against the wall and scream. Or cry at all of the reunions (in the same book).
Of course, I always re-read the books that I like, who re-reads the books that they don't like? A masochist, probably, or an eternal optimist, certain that stories, like wine and cheese, improve with time.
I'm neither a masochist nor an (eternal) optimist, but I have found myself re-reading some of the books that have gotten less than 4 stars in the first go. It's just that I've decided to re-read a series, and in that series, there are a few books that didn't sit well the first time.
I'm not worried about those that I deem favorites, I liked them the first time, so I'm bound to like them the second time around.
But what about those that didn't strike the right note all those years ago (make that five)? Have they "improved" in time? Would I find something that I missed? And would that "something that I missed" higher the rating on the re-read.
The second book in the series one again got (only) three stars, and that's only because I still like the mystery plot and the villain. Go figure.
The hero, heroine, and their arc were just as annoying as one the first read.
That's the "curse" of the re-read for me. I know nothing has changed, and yet I re-read it anyway. I guess this does make me a bit of a masochist after all.