There are books that I love, and I love them when I first read them, I love them days and weeks after I've finished them and still continue to love them months and years later - the YAYOMGILOVETHATBOOK! feeling stays with me and I still feel it when I think about the book now or see it mentioned. But then... there's a lot of books that had that initial good reaction and it faded with time.
There's books that I really enjoyed and then weeks/months/a year later, I've found myself having basically forgotten all about the book or having kind of...meh-feelings towards it.
I'm not sure if this is because the books just aren't as good as they intially seemed or not. Maybe those books are just the kind of books that I can enjoy in the moment without overthinking it but once I've had some time to think about them, I see flaws that I overlooked or the good things don't seem as likeable as they did at first.
Or maybe it's that my mood plays a bigger impact on my enjoyment of a book than I realised. I'm a mood reader and sometimes I crave a certain genre or something and any book that can satisfy that craving will get a more positive reaction from me than it would have had I been in any other mood. And then, when my mood changes, my feelings on the book change too - it served its purpose, but didn't stick with me beyond that.
I normally review a book pretty soon after I finish reading it. I like reviewing when the feelings I got while reading it were still fresh in my mind. I'm not sure which would be the more reliable review: that initial reaction--the immediate feelings from reading the book--or a review written after I've had some distance from the book, some time to think about it and let my emotions settle and my mood change.
When I write a review of a book, I mean the things I say... at the time. But then, there's a few books that I've reviewed really positively that, if I'm honest, I would review differently if I were re-reviewing them now. 4-5 star books could be bumped down to 3 stars. 3-4 star books closer to 2.5. (There's also some rare cases where I view a book more positively after having some time to think about it than I did while actually reading it.)
This post is a bit rambling, sorry. Basically, I just wanted to know:
1. Do you find your opinions of books change after a while?
2. Which reviews do you prefer: ones written on instinct, going purely off of the feelings a person had while reading the book or... ones that have had more time to stew, emotions have had time to settle? Or do both have their merits?
3. And, out of curiosity, what are some books that are still as awesome to you now as they were when you first read them?
I'll answer 3 to end this post on a more positive note:
Any book by Melina Marchetta or John Green. Between Shades of Gray by Ruta Sepetys, Nevermore by Kelly Creagh, A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini, Like Water for Chocolate by Laurra Esquivel, Forbidden by Tabitha Suzuma, The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky, Stolen by Lucy Christopher, The Sky is Everywhere by Jandy Nelson... and I'll stop there, because it is a long list. I recommend all of these books (if you're not new to the blog, you probably know that already though since I recommend them pretty frequently).