Acquired taste books

[optimus187prime]

Basically I wanna know if there are any books that you found hard to read at first but after a 2nd, 3rd, maybe even 4th read, you fell in love with it. Around the time I started to fall back into comics for the 100th time I tried Preacher on a whim, and Im not sure what it was but I couldnt really get into it. I speculate that because of having a layoff with comics when I came back and saw the art of McNiven Cassaday Ross it turned me into an instant an art snob(I know unforgivable). After getting into Ennis/Dillon on MK Punisher I went back and tried Preacher again, and of course its one of the (if not the) best things I have ever read. So any books do the same to you guys ?

BTW not saying Preacher is acquired taste just didnt have a better statement for the title:p

[euchre0]

Gotham Central. I randomly bought issue 15 or so, but didn't like the art. years later, I lover Michael Lark and have tracked down are the issues. It's so great I honestly wonder why I didn't like it, especially since the initial issue I bought is the middle of my favorite story arch.

[mikegraham6]

I know i sound like a broken record, but The Order started out very average and increasingly got better with each issue

[xyzzy]

I can think of a lot of books where my opinion went down after subsequent readings, but not any where it improved.

Mostly because I don't often re-read books that I didn't enjoy the first time around.

[xyzzy]

I know i sound like a broken record, but The Order started out very average and increasingly got better with each issue

That's kind of a different phenomenon, isn't it? I mean, I nearly missed out on Fables because I thought that the first trade was average. It went on to become one of my all time favorite series. But I still think that first volume was just average.

[jaflanagan]

Next's week's video show is going to be about that for me.

[optimus187prime]

Next's week's video show is going to be about that for me.

Well I look forward to it :)

[optimus187prime]

That's kind of a different phenomenon, isn't it? I mean, I nearly missed out on Fables because I thought that the first trade was average. It went on to become one of my all time favorite series. But I still think that first volume was just average.

Allow me to pose a question, at my local library I have the ability to take out fables 2 & 3 but no other volumes. I would like to give it a read just to see if it is something I would like. If it was something I really liked I would of course buy the series. Do I need to have read vol 1 to enjoy the other vol.s ? BTW, I just took out League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (per the ifanboys recommendation), and Alan Moore's Swamp Thing. Well let me know, if all else fails I could just go to another library but dont want to.

[jaflanagan]

I've heard that people tend to dislike vol 2 more than most of the others, so it may not be the best place to start. But moreso, it's a long story, and there are a lot of characters. If you miss the first volume, you'll lose a lot of who the characters are, and what things are significant.

That said, you could probably just go on Wikipedia, and catch up, then read through those 2 books, and you'll get a general idea if you like it. I can say, it gets better and better after vol. 3. Not in a bad way, but the reader is rewarded for sticking around.

[optimus187prime]

I've heard that people tend to dislike vol 2 more than most of the others, so it may not be the best place to start. But moreso, it's a long story, and there are a lot of characters. If you miss the first volume, you'll lose a lot of who the characters are, and what things are significant.

That said, you could probably just go on Wikipedia, and catch up, then read through those 2 books, and you'll get a general idea if you like it. I can say, it gets better and better after vol. 3. Not in a bad way, but the reader is rewarded for sticking around.

Well based on that I think I may go ahead and use the New Castle County Library systems search and track down #1 at another location. I cant stand Wiki explainations for stories, takes all the "umph" out of it.

BTW you find out Bruce Willis is a ghost at the end :D

[xyzzy]

I've heard that people tend to dislike vol 2 more than most of the others, so it may not be the best place to start. But moreso, it's a long story, and there are a lot of characters. If you miss the first volume, you'll lose a lot of who the characters are, and what things are significant.

That said, you could probably just go on Wikipedia, and catch up, then read through those 2 books, and you'll get a general idea if you like it. I can say, it gets better and better after vol. 3. Not in a bad way, but the reader is rewarded for sticking around.

It's hard to say for sure, since I did read them in order, but I really think that you could get by without having read the first volume. The events therein have very little impact on the rest of the series and subsequent volumes do a good job of letting you know who the players are.

Then again, perhaps I'm in the minority because I enjoyed v. 2. Not my favorite by any means, but I knew by the end of v. 2 that I would be buying v. 3. Didn't really fall in love with the series until v. 5, though.

[humphrey-lee]

Y'know, I don't really think there's so much books that are an "acquired taste" but more the guys writing them. Most comic book writers have this innate style that you just seem to like or not. Like Warren Ellis with his bitter yet hopeful and overly scientificness in his writing, or Bendis' dialogue and how it flows or Morrison's... well, uh, just him being Grant Morrison.

After that I think it's just genre's and subgenre's. If you don't like comics with a Silver Age-like touch, you're probably not going to like All Star Superman, or if you don't like pure, gritty crime books you're not going to dig Criminal.

Too many people just have such a small "safe-zone" that that's why they don't really buy certain books, not because a book is overly different, it's just that they aren't conventional, sort of something like THE ORDER.

Though, I will say I think SCOTT PILGRIM is probably in the category of an acquired taste. It blends so much that it might be overload for too many.

[esophagus]

American Virgin. Not so much an "acquired taste" as just a book it took me a while to fully get into. At first it was just good, but at some point I fell in love. I guess, with the cancellation, it didn't quite click that way for everyone.

[optimus187prime]

Next's week's video show is going to be about that for me.

So KC huh ? Glad you liked it the second time around. I made the mistake of thinking everything Ross or Waid did was this good after reading KC. So I am selling off some Ross stuff on ebay.

[jasontodd]

I think All-New Atom has been somewhat of an acquired taste, even though it does have a bit of a cult following.

It took me 4 or 5 issues to appreciate it.

[aaron-j-scott]

For some things, I don't think it's always an "acquired" taste. (This may be difficult to explain.)

When I was in college, all of my friends were really big into all kinds of music. We'd all hang out in someone's room and listen to new finds at the local record stores and flea markets, and the new stuff in from mailorder distros. After listening to something particularly obscure but of some reputation, we got into a big discussion on the order of things you must hear before Album X makes any sense. I think there are things you must understand first before tackling something (be it music or comics or otherwise) that is mostly foreign to you.

So, I guess what I'm saying it doesn't just take reading and re-reading the same thing to "get" some works, but understanding how to get to that point (be it through other books by the same author and/or artist, other books related culturally to it, the history of its creation, etc.).

That said, I remember picking up some of Will Eisner's The Spirit when I first started reading comics with some regularity several years back and I just didn't really latch onto it. But I knew it carries quite a reputation (if even some legend). Several years later, and having read the Cooke series, some other Eisner stuff, some other works that came out alongside it from other creators AND some of the history behind it, I bet I'll be able to pick it up and actually get into it the next time I pick it up.

[optimus187prime]

For some things, I don't think it's always an "acquired" taste. (This may be difficult to explain.)

When I was in college, all of my friends were really big into all kinds of music. We'd all hang out in someone's room and listen to new finds at the local record stores and flea markets, and the new stuff in from mailorder distros. After listening to something particularly obscure but of some reputation, we got into a big discussion on the order of things you must hear before Album X makes any sense. I think there are things you must understand first before tackling something (be it music or comics or otherwise) that is mostly foreign to you.

So, I guess what I'm saying it doesn't just take reading and re-reading the same thing to "get" some works, but understanding how to get to that point (be it through other books by the same author and/or artist, other books related culturally to it, the history of its creation, etc.).

That said, I remember picking up some of Will Eisner's The Spirit when I first started reading comics with some regularity several years back and I just didn't really latch onto it. But I knew it carries quite a reputation (if even some legend). Several years later, and having read the Cooke series, some other Eisner stuff, some other works that came out alongside it from other creators AND some of the history behind it, I bet I'll be able to pick it up and actually get into it the next time I pick it up.

Yeah you are definitly right I think of it like coffee and beer. Never did like those before but then something happened and now they rock !

[tad]

The Spirit changed its vibe throughout its run. I think the post war years are the best, around 1948 to early 50s. Eisner was experimenting with the comic storytelling and almost all the stories showed a wicked sense of humor. Those comics are the reason I have little interest in a Frank Miller, grim n gritty movie.

[jasontodd]

For some things, I don't think it's always an "acquired" taste. (This may be difficult to explain.)

When I was in college, all of my friends were really big into all kinds of music. We'd all hang out in someone's room and listen to new finds at the local record stores and flea markets, and the new stuff in from mailorder distros. After listening to something particularly obscure but of some reputation, we got into a big discussion on the order of things you must hear before Album X makes any sense. I think there are things you must understand first before tackling something (be it music or comics or otherwise) that is mostly foreign to you.

So, I guess what I'm saying it doesn't just take reading and re-reading the same thing to "get" some works, but understanding how to get to that point (be it through other books by the same author and/or artist, other books related culturally to it, the history of its creation, etc.).

That said, I remember picking up some of Will Eisner's The Spirit when I first started reading comics with some regularity several years back and I just didn't really latch onto it. But I knew it carries quite a reputation (if even some legend). Several years later, and having read the Cooke series, some other Eisner stuff, some other works that came out alongside it from other creators AND some of the history behind it, I bet I'll be able to pick it up and actually get into it the next time I pick it up.

This is an excellent way to define "acquired taste". The first time that I heard Radiohead's "Kid A", after hearing Radiohead's first 3 albums... I thought it was horrible. It was so different. After 10 listens or so, I thought it was great.

Every album that I heard after it was compared to Kid A, and my taste was expanded.

Comics are the same way. If you read something different like "The Invisibles", your tastes will be expanded.

[aaron-j-scott]

Um, I think you guys are missing my point.

It's not experiencing and re-experiencing a certain work in order to better understand that particular work, it's experience other stuff related to it in various ways (same creative, same era, same storytelling techniques, etc.) in order to understand and appreciate it.

That's the point I'm trying to make--not acquiring the taste through repetition, but through experimentation of tangentially related material.

[timmywood-]

Grant Morrison's Seaguy was a book I didn't like at first but I go back and re read it often.