She certainly is, that. Though I have to wonder how much of the reaction is just something that's magnified because the stories are shorter and read more closely together. Would the effect be similar if these had been novel-length pieces we picked up and read after one another? Would the effect be similar if they'd been short stories we hadn't read together in anthology? For me the answer would be 'no'.
I wish I knew how to phrase my reasons for the first question. *pokes brain* The second, though. There's a sense of quality about stories that are brought together in an anthology (especially one like the YBFH which even has 'best' in the title), so when the reader finds that quality lacking, for any reason, where does that leave the anthology? When is an anthology truly successful? Should we like every story in an anthology equally? Should we, as readers, allow for the (occasional) ones that we're hard-pressed to finish? How about the ones that leave us wondering why on earth the story was included? (Mind you, I'd love to know why stories were included/picked, period, because that's the kind of thing I find fascinating.)
They're strange things, anthologies. And replying to you now, writing down those questions... I don't think I've ever realised how much of my childhood reading was anthologies. I grew up with read-along anthologies. They're probably the books I went back to most often, for the few stories that truly gripped me. One of them had a translation/condensation of Peter Pan in it that made up half the book's content. I skipped it routinely. That's a lot of story to skip in a book, even an anthology, but I've never, ever regretted reading those books. Nor sticking to reading my favourites. It's strange to think how much my reading's changed.
Also, I'm sorry for straying so. They're questions and thoughts that pop up from time to time in my mind. *pokes DW and hopes it won't double-post now*
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2009-05-02 09:45 am (UTC)I wish I knew how to phrase my reasons for the first question. *pokes brain* The second, though. There's a sense of quality about stories that are brought together in an anthology (especially one like the YBFH which even has 'best' in the title), so when the reader finds that quality lacking, for any reason, where does that leave the anthology? When is an anthology truly successful? Should we like every story in an anthology equally? Should we, as readers, allow for the (occasional) ones that we're hard-pressed to finish? How about the ones that leave us wondering why on earth the story was included? (Mind you, I'd love to know why stories were included/picked, period, because that's the kind of thing I find fascinating.)
They're strange things, anthologies. And replying to you now, writing down those questions... I don't think I've ever realised how much of my childhood reading was anthologies. I grew up with read-along anthologies. They're probably the books I went back to most often, for the few stories that truly gripped me. One of them had a translation/condensation of Peter Pan in it that made up half the book's content. I skipped it routinely. That's a lot of story to skip in a book, even an anthology, but I've never, ever regretted reading those books. Nor sticking to reading my favourites. It's strange to think how much my reading's changed.
Also, I'm sorry for straying so. They're questions and thoughts that pop up from time to time in my mind. *pokes DW and hopes it won't double-post now*