I get the author's point that sometimes the right book at the right time can have an outsized impact and to reread it years later might dull the memory. In that case I get not rereading it.
But great books are rereadable in part because you can go back to it at different ages and get something new out of it each time. For me _Walden_, _Self-Reliance_, and _The Republic_---to name a few---do just that.
It's also worth rereading books that shaped you because sometimes with maturity you see they weren't great, and were manipulating you -- fiction that stacks the deck so its characters are forced to act out the author's fetishes, nonfiction that uncritically accepted bogus studies, and so on.
As a teen, I thought Catch-22 had a sad ending, and Slaughter House Five had an upbeat ending. Then rereading in my late twenties, I thought the opposite. In the following decades, I've gone through all the possible permutations.
I missed my optimal "catcher in the rye" window I think - I read it when I was too young and it seemed like a book about someone deciding to throw his entire life away. found it way depressing and never read it again, but in retrospect it was just teenage angst that would seem unremarkable but not very compelling to read about right now.
Plus there are books where you just want to immerse yourself again and again in the story: Raymond Chandler's novels, Lord of the Rings, William Gibson's Neuromancer. Sometimes books are just fun.
Not quite as intellectual, but rewatching movies from your youth is similar. Movies that you thought were deep or moving turn out to be rather formulaic tripe -- you just thought they were deep because you hadn't seen the tropes in them before.
I'm currently rereading Malazan Book of the Fallen series. It's a slog, but I'm noticing much more stuff I missed the last time, and the bits I thought I remembered correctly are definitely not they way I remember.
C. S. Lewis wrote something about the difference between those who do and don't reread literature. People who do reread (whom he called "literary") do it for the appreciation of the prose itself, rather like re-listening to a piece of music (my analogy). Nobody is going to argue that you shouldn't re-listen to music.
I'm right now starting my third trip through the 20 Patrick O'Brian books (Master and Commander). There's a whole Facebook group of POB fans who call that a circumnavigation.
For me it's just the beauty of the prose. I just marvel as how he describes things. I just wonder if there's something I can take from that.
I do a lot of rereading, but I have the complicating mix of reading extremely quickly but also having ADHD-induced memory holes, so on a first read I usually only have the high points stick with me while the rest falls almost immediately out of my head. By the third or fourth read of a novel (usually months or years later) I've retained enough that I can actually describe the plot.
If the goal of reading is personal enjoyment, then rereading is simply a personal choice.
If the goal of reading is to be more productive, then what matters is your ability to remember the text. In this case, active recall and spaced repetition are far more efficient than rereading.
Rereading is fine because if you enjoy reading it again then that’s as good as reading a new book that you also enjoy, or maybe there isn’t a book you are willing to try. Although rereading a great book may stop you from risking your time on new ones
>In the end, maybe the crucial difference between those who read once and those who reread is an attitude toward time, or more precisely, death. The most obvious argument against rereading is, of course, that there just isn’t enough time. It makes no sense to luxuriate in Flaubert’s physiognomic details over and over again, unless you think you’re going to live forever.
This is a curious argument. Does the author never listen to a song more than once?
> Does the author never listen to a song more than once?
Listening to a 4 minute song isn't much of a time investment compared to reading a book.
Also, songs are entirely different beasts. They're designed to be repetitve — e.g, the chorus — and generally aren't plot-based, so there are no spoilers. And music is often more of a background activity than a foreground activity.
Reading a book isn't much of time investment, either, depending on how quickly you read. I read most novels in just a few evenings (sometimes just a single evening if I'm really into it), and then I'm out of books I'm interested in reading for a while. Even though I re-read all the books that I like multiple times, I still have more reading time than reading material.
When I'm out of books I want to read (which is most of the time), I just switch to some other activity — like watching YouTube or reading my phone — in the hour or two before bed. But these are a lot more disruptive to my sleep than books are.
If I had a policy of never re-reading books, this situation would be a lot worse.
In my mind re-reading is a pretentious version of something that I have noticed before when working in an office. A group of coworkers started talking about and quoting from a TV series. I think I remembered a few episodes vaguely. But a few of the guys seemed to be working together to repeat a whole scene. They must have seen the same episodes at least two or three times to be that familiar.
Or, I have noticed people talking about re-watching movies multiple times, and quoting them confidently.
I don't think most of these books are nearly as important as people think they are, in the context of their actual lives. My suspicion is that part of what is driving this is some kind of social pressure or desire to have a common culture. Which is fine, but I think it's stupid to think that there is something more to it.
Another explanation: some people find that new information is just less comfortable for them and would rather repeat the same experience.
Anyway, I think it's the sign of a less adaptable mind or lack of interest in useful information or growth.
There are an effectively infinite number of books, television series, movies, and video games. And I am sure there will be someone sniffing and saying those aren't similar. But they are all media in this context. The reason it does not seem as intractable to get through it all as it really is, is because we naturally filter out most things in general and hone our interest. If we didn't, we would go insane and have no direction. But there are so many books, video games from different eras, movies, etc.
I think it's very ignorant to keep repeating the same ones multiple times when there is so much that you can't possibly get to. And if you say that only a small portion are really worthy of your time, I think that is not objectively true. Again, it just seems that way due to your brain having selected a few bits for your interest. Probably largely based on what you (subconsciously) noticed other people consuming.
There are hundreds of movies and television episodes, and thousands of books and video games produced every year. But let's suppose you ignore 97% of them that aren't extremely popular.
But if you look at only the most popular classical literature, the very most popular books, movies, shows, video games, and ignore the vast majority which were not in the top 3% -- it's still something like 4,000+ media items if you go back to the 1940s. If you run out of those, could you really not look at a few still in the top 10% of popularity? And we are only talking about English language and ignoring any translation or dubbing.
Do you listen to the same song twice? Do you choose the same path to travel consistently? Do you choose to look at the same art piece more than once? How about poems?
Do you have a response to other comments about valuing the prose, and looking for depth in the art (book in this case)?
My opinion is that a single piece of art can have more variety, and more content than a thousand other pieces of art. Getting to know a single piece can be more fulfilling than a thousand others.
It just sounds like you appreciate uniqueness. But others might enjoy depth. you are quick to dismiss others as shallow, but I think the same point could be made about your interest.
I can agree if the person in question is ONLY reconsuming the same content and never consuming anything new, but is that really common enough of a person to warrant discussion? Just cause the people you mention can quote a movie or two doesn't mean they've never consumed anything else.
Not every moment of every day needs to be dedicated to expanding your mind, despite what many people on HN think.
You're also disregarding the fact that, if enough time has passed or if some major event has happened since last time, reconsumption can give you an entirely different perspective and understanding of a piece of media, an experience which is being shared elsewhere in this thread. Surely seeing an old story in a new light is more or less as valuable as reading a new story? Why are we focusing on the words on the page rather than the reaction they trigger in the reader?
Readit News
But great books are rereadable in part because you can go back to it at different ages and get something new out of it each time. For me _Walden_, _Self-Reliance_, and _The Republic_---to name a few---do just that.
exactly. You hear different things in the music (the secondary melody lines, the bass, etc.) and in books you savor the prose.
IF that's your thing, of course. If it's just "find out how it ends" then you already know.
For me it's just the beauty of the prose. I just marvel as how he describes things. I just wonder if there's something I can take from that.
If the goal of reading is to be more productive, then what matters is your ability to remember the text. In this case, active recall and spaced repetition are far more efficient than rereading.
This is a curious argument. Does the author never listen to a song more than once?
Listening to a 4 minute song isn't much of a time investment compared to reading a book.
Also, songs are entirely different beasts. They're designed to be repetitve — e.g, the chorus — and generally aren't plot-based, so there are no spoilers. And music is often more of a background activity than a foreground activity.
When I'm out of books I want to read (which is most of the time), I just switch to some other activity — like watching YouTube or reading my phone — in the hour or two before bed. But these are a lot more disruptive to my sleep than books are.
If I had a policy of never re-reading books, this situation would be a lot worse.
Or, I have noticed people talking about re-watching movies multiple times, and quoting them confidently.
I don't think most of these books are nearly as important as people think they are, in the context of their actual lives. My suspicion is that part of what is driving this is some kind of social pressure or desire to have a common culture. Which is fine, but I think it's stupid to think that there is something more to it.
Another explanation: some people find that new information is just less comfortable for them and would rather repeat the same experience.
Anyway, I think it's the sign of a less adaptable mind or lack of interest in useful information or growth.
There are an effectively infinite number of books, television series, movies, and video games. And I am sure there will be someone sniffing and saying those aren't similar. But they are all media in this context. The reason it does not seem as intractable to get through it all as it really is, is because we naturally filter out most things in general and hone our interest. If we didn't, we would go insane and have no direction. But there are so many books, video games from different eras, movies, etc.
I think it's very ignorant to keep repeating the same ones multiple times when there is so much that you can't possibly get to. And if you say that only a small portion are really worthy of your time, I think that is not objectively true. Again, it just seems that way due to your brain having selected a few bits for your interest. Probably largely based on what you (subconsciously) noticed other people consuming.
There are hundreds of movies and television episodes, and thousands of books and video games produced every year. But let's suppose you ignore 97% of them that aren't extremely popular.
But if you look at only the most popular classical literature, the very most popular books, movies, shows, video games, and ignore the vast majority which were not in the top 3% -- it's still something like 4,000+ media items if you go back to the 1940s. If you run out of those, could you really not look at a few still in the top 10% of popularity? And we are only talking about English language and ignoring any translation or dubbing.
Do you have a response to other comments about valuing the prose, and looking for depth in the art (book in this case)?
My opinion is that a single piece of art can have more variety, and more content than a thousand other pieces of art. Getting to know a single piece can be more fulfilling than a thousand others.
It just sounds like you appreciate uniqueness. But others might enjoy depth. you are quick to dismiss others as shallow, but I think the same point could be made about your interest.
Not every moment of every day needs to be dedicated to expanding your mind, despite what many people on HN think.
You're also disregarding the fact that, if enough time has passed or if some major event has happened since last time, reconsumption can give you an entirely different perspective and understanding of a piece of media, an experience which is being shared elsewhere in this thread. Surely seeing an old story in a new light is more or less as valuable as reading a new story? Why are we focusing on the words on the page rather than the reaction they trigger in the reader?