5 ms·

This, plus reading great books more than once. The idea of reading a book a second time was repulsive when I had never done it before. But once I tried it, I r

This, plus reading great books more than once. The idea of reading a book a second time was repulsive when I had never done it before. But once I tried it, I realized that it is a much better use of my time and I get many more insights the second time around. I'd rather read an amazing book again, than waste my time on mediocre books just to say I read a lot of books. Reading a lot of books is overrated. Reading great books is underrated.

kqr 4y ago
Indeed. I used to think my to-read list is long enough already, with no need to add books I've already read to it. I've come to realise that it's not a list, it's a priority queue. And what would be weird would be if the greatest books I've already read would rank the absolute lowest in priority. Of course they fit into the to-read priority queue, some quite high, even!
davnicwil 4y ago
yeah I agree with this and I think there's some broader truth here that also applies to other art forms where the real value is not in the unveiling of a storyline or whatever, but in the detail in the journey along the way. Actually this might be one definition of a great book / film / series etc - that it can't truly have 'spoilers' because the key facts of the plot is not the point.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  I loved this idea (and it rang very true in context) in the Hadestown musical, which is a retelling of the story of Orpheus and Eurydice - and it begins with lyrics like "It's a sad song, it's a sad tale, it's a tragedy - but we sing it anyway". Knowing how the story ends can sometimes even make it better, when it's a really great story.
  - Tomte 4y ago
    Romeo and Juliet gives their eventual deaths away in the first few sentences, as well.
- Barrin92 4y ago
  yes the modern anxiety over spoiler alerts I think is very closely tied to the "watch once and forget" culture. It also always reminds me of that Hitchcock anecdote where he talks about the difference between surprise, which is not knowing that the bomb is under the table, to suspense, the viewer seeing the bomb but it not going off. The former is five seconds of surprise, the latter is 15 minutes of tension. Point being that keeping the viewer in the dark is in many ways the lowest form of creating excitement. And it seems way to common nowadays both in how we watch and how stories themselves are constructed around this.
f0e4c2f7 4y ago
I agree - how many times have you watched your favorite movie? Favorite TV show? If only once you should watch it at least one more time. I've only read the culture novels by Iain Banks once. I'm really looking forward to doing a second read in a few years. Thinking I might do audiobooks next time.
RunSet 4y ago
"My definition of a great story has nothing to do with 'a varied and interesting background.' It is: One that can be read with pleasure by a cultivated reader and reread with increased pleasure." - Gene Wolfe, from a chain letter to George R.R. Martin and Greg Benford
sorokod 4y ago
I commented elsewhere that rereading a book can be compared to revisiting a certain landscape. After a wery long time I am rereading "A Study In Scarlet", the very first Sherlock Holmes story. Just from the first few chapters some things I have not noticed or perhaps forgot: * Watson is an Afghanistan veteran * The London borough of Holborn is referred to as "the Holborn" (no idea why) * Watson and Holmes are flatmates, they share an apartment as they can't afford to live solo - some things don't change. * The word "ejaculate" did some cultural traveling over the years.
- CodeyWhizzBang 4y ago
  There's a line in War of the Worlds that was innocuous at the time, but is impossible to read as intended now to our modern eyes: "He heard footsteps running to and fro in the rooms, and up and down stairs behind him. His landlady came to the door, loosely wrapped in dressing gown and shawl; her husband followed ejaculating."
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - axiomdata316 4y ago
    This brings back memories of me reading this is middle school. I remember getting to this exact spot and thinking should I be reading this? Lol. I'm glad to know I'm not the only person that read that passage a different way.
  - sorokod 4y ago
    Funny how we (and victorians such as Conan Doyle and Wells) make an effort to avoid "naughty words" and then all efforts come to nothing as the language moves on.
  - kwhitefoot 4y ago
    No it isn't.
- sandworm101 4y ago
  >> share an apartment as they can't afford to live solo There was also at the time a general disdain for living solo. A person living on their own was almost seen to be hiding something. Their daily activity would be totally unchecked. The protestant ethic also saw it wasteful for one person to occupy an entire dwelling on their own. Think of all the scrooge-like literary characters who lived alone.
Veen 4y ago
Nabokov said: > Curiously enough, one cannot read a book: one can only reread it. A good reader, a major reader, an active and creative reader is a rereader. https://www.themarginalian.org/2013/01/21/nabokov-on-what-makes-a-good-reader/ https://www.themarginalian.org/2013/01/21/nabokov-on-what-ma...
scarecrowbob 4y ago
There are several reasons why I agree, but I want to elaborate on one specifically. I believe almost all "meaning" comes from context. The process of reading a book is part of the process of developing a context for a story. When we come back to the book's beginning again, we are experiencing that same work in a new context. Often that new context provides elements in the text I may have missed on the first read-through And, further, when I return to books with new life experiences their context has changed again, sometimes radically: reading King's "The Shining" as a preteen was very different than reading through it as a twice-divorced alcoholic with two grown children. In my understanding, some texts allow for that return better than others. Some texts are complex, in that they can speak deeply to us in many ways based on the varied contexts in which we approach them, and that's much of how I value the books I value.
- ddalex 4y ago
  One reason why I think reading great books multiple times is important is that it allows us to gain new insights and perspectives on the text each time we read it. Our understanding of a book can change as we grow and experience new things in life, and rereading a book can help us see it in a new light. For example, a book that might have seemed simplistic or shallow on our first read-through might reveal itself to be a deeply complex and thought-provoking work on a second or third read. Additionally, rereading a book can help us better understand and appreciate the author's intentions and the themes and ideas they were exploring.
  - dandy23 4y ago
    Sounds like GPT-3.

kqr 4y ago

Indeed. I used to think my to-read list is long enough already, with no need to add books I've already read to it. I've come to realise that it's not a list, it's a priority queue. And what would be weird would be if the greatest books I've already read would rank the absolute lowest in priority. Of course they fit into the to-read priority queue, some quite high, even!

davnicwil 4y ago

yeah I agree with this and I think there's some broader truth here that also applies to other art forms where the real value is not in the unveiling of a storyline or whatever, but in the detail in the journey along the way. Actually this might be one definition of a great book / film / series etc - that it can't truly have 'spoilers' because the key facts of the plot is not the point.

tsimionescu 4y ago
I loved this idea (and it rang very true in context) in the Hadestown musical, which is a retelling of the story of Orpheus and Eurydice - and it begins with lyrics like "It's a sad song, it's a sad tale, it's a tragedy - but we sing it anyway". Knowing how the story ends can sometimes even make it better, when it's a really great story.
- Tomte 4y ago
  Romeo and Juliet gives their eventual deaths away in the first few sentences, as well.
Barrin92 4y ago
yes the modern anxiety over spoiler alerts I think is very closely tied to the "watch once and forget" culture. It also always reminds me of that Hitchcock anecdote where he talks about the difference between surprise, which is not knowing that the bomb is under the table, to suspense, the viewer seeing the bomb but it not going off. The former is five seconds of surprise, the latter is 15 minutes of tension. Point being that keeping the viewer in the dark is in many ways the lowest form of creating excitement. And it seems way to common nowadays both in how we watch and how stories themselves are constructed around this.

f0e4c2f7 4y ago

I agree - how many times have you watched your favorite movie? Favorite TV show? If only once you should watch it at least one more time. I've only read the culture novels by Iain Banks once. I'm really looking forward to doing a second read in a few years. Thinking I might do audiobooks next time.

RunSet 4y ago

"My definition of a great story has nothing to do with 'a varied and interesting background.' It is: One that can be read with pleasure by a cultivated reader and reread with increased pleasure." - Gene Wolfe, from a chain letter to George R.R. Martin and Greg Benford

sorokod 4y ago

I commented elsewhere that rereading a book can be compared to revisiting a certain landscape. After a wery long time I am rereading "A Study In Scarlet", the very first Sherlock Holmes story. Just from the first few chapters some things I have not noticed or perhaps forgot: * Watson is an Afghanistan veteran * The London borough of Holborn is referred to as "the Holborn" (no idea why) * Watson and Holmes are flatmates, they share an apartment as they can't afford to live solo - some things don't change. * The word "ejaculate" did some cultural traveling over the years.

CodeyWhizzBang 4y ago
There's a line in War of the Worlds that was innocuous at the time, but is impossible to read as intended now to our modern eyes: "He heard footsteps running to and fro in the rooms, and up and down stairs behind him. His landlady came to the door, loosely wrapped in dressing gown and shawl; her husband followed ejaculating."
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- axiomdata316 4y ago
  This brings back memories of me reading this is middle school. I remember getting to this exact spot and thinking should I be reading this? Lol. I'm glad to know I'm not the only person that read that passage a different way.
- sorokod 4y ago
  Funny how we (and victorians such as Conan Doyle and Wells) make an effort to avoid "naughty words" and then all efforts come to nothing as the language moves on.
- kwhitefoot 4y ago
  No it isn't.
sandworm101 4y ago
>> share an apartment as they can't afford to live solo There was also at the time a general disdain for living solo. A person living on their own was almost seen to be hiding something. Their daily activity would be totally unchecked. The protestant ethic also saw it wasteful for one person to occupy an entire dwelling on their own. Think of all the scrooge-like literary characters who lived alone.

Veen 4y ago

Nabokov said: > Curiously enough, one cannot read a book: one can only reread it. A good reader, a major reader, an active and creative reader is a rereader. https://www.themarginalian.org/2013/01/21/nabokov-on-what-makes-a-good-reader/ https://www.themarginalian.org/2013/01/21/nabokov-on-what-ma...

scarecrowbob 4y ago

There are several reasons why I agree, but I want to elaborate on one specifically. I believe almost all "meaning" comes from context. The process of reading a book is part of the process of developing a context for a story. When we come back to the book's beginning again, we are experiencing that same work in a new context. Often that new context provides elements in the text I may have missed on the first read-through And, further, when I return to books with new life experiences their context has changed again, sometimes radically: reading King's "The Shining" as a preteen was very different than reading through it as a twice-divorced alcoholic with two grown children. In my understanding, some texts allow for that return better than others. Some texts are complex, in that they can speak deeply to us in many ways based on the varied contexts in which we approach them, and that's much of how I value the books I value.

ddalex 4y ago
One reason why I think reading great books multiple times is important is that it allows us to gain new insights and perspectives on the text each time we read it. Our understanding of a book can change as we grow and experience new things in life, and rereading a book can help us see it in a new light. For example, a book that might have seemed simplistic or shallow on our first read-through might reveal itself to be a deeply complex and thought-provoking work on a second or third read. Additionally, rereading a book can help us better understand and appreciate the author's intentions and the themes and ideas they were exploring.
- dandy23 4y ago
  Sounds like GPT-3.