I read it when I was fairly young; I know I didn't fully grasp many of the concepts in the book, but it didn't feel "difficult". GEB's strength is also its weak

I read it when I was fairly young; I know I didn't fully grasp many of the concepts in the book, but it didn't feel "difficult". GEB's strength is also its weakness--it's engaging and inspiring, showing evocative connections between all manner of concepts that are themselves intricate and fascinating, in a manner that gives even a reader with little knowledge of the subjects a glimpse of the underlying abstract beauty. It's little wonder that many people cite it as having been a major influence on choosing to study some topic it touches on (particularly AI). But now, returning a decade hence, equipped with a deeper understanding of the material--particularly with the many faces of the self-reference paradox (which amusingly includes fixed-point combinators such as Y) that so deeply fascinates Hofstadter--a lot of GEB comes across as somewhat superficial and self-absorbed. Yet had I not read it, I doubt I would have ever explored the topics in the first place, so in a way the book itself has indirectly ruined my ability to enjoy it, an almost Hofstadter-esque twist of fate! In the end, GEB is a beautiful but fundamentally shallow book that ties together a lot of very deep concepts--so perhaps I can understand that, if one takes it at face value, it might seem intimidating. Taken as the intellectual candy that it is, though, it's a delightful bit of light reading (so long as the material is mostly new to you).