What factors are needed for you to re-read?

[Connavar]

I can only imagine, i usually look at Book Hauls thread just torture myself with the books i can never find as second hand over here.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Well, I can't say that I prefer poverty, though it doesn't suck as much as one might think.

I'm not fond of it myself, but I'm willing to sacrifice some things that my friends regard as essential in return for the time to read, reread, and write. Of course if they did have to sacrifice them, they would cope, but they don't know that.

Since my husband's pension, never a generous one, went down with the economy, we were spared the necessity of moving in with relatives simply because a horde of relatives moved in with us and are helping to pay the mortgage payments. Unfortunately, the consequent lack of space means that some of the books I might otherwise be rereading are packed away where I can't find them. I actually have to go to the library to check out books that I know I have ... somewhere.

 

[Dale_M]

It is lucky for all of us here that we are able to take refuge in the land of ink and paper. Have pity on those who can't, and have nowhere to go....

 

[paranoid marvin]

Well , my FAVOURITE books I take time over reading; the only problem being that I don't know if it's a favourite until I have read it (or at least the vast majority). Second time around - usually several years later - I take my time and appreciate the story right from the first paragraph.

It is interesting to go back to enjoyable books several years after the first read , to see what was missed first time around , and if there is any indications of dramtical irony of what is to take place later on. Another enjoyable aspect of re-reading is remembering what one was doing , or going through , the first time the book was read and making comparisons with now. For instance , the first time I read The Hobbit as a child I was excited by the aspects of dragons,magic rings and climatic battles , whereas now I appreciate the subtle humour and style of story-telling employed by the author.

There are times though that I do feel that I am wasting much valuable time re-reading , when there is still so much un-read literature out there; but then again I read now soley for enjoyment and recreational purposes, so I am content.

 

[jubalharshaw]

Two reasons come to mind: First, I fell in love with the characters or the world in which they live. I want to visit them again. (all Heinlein, LOTR, Thomas Covenant, etc..). They feel like old friends.
Secondly, I get disappointed by some of the books being published now. Yes, there are some good ones, but in general I find many thin plots and veiled retellings...all stretched out into trilogies.

 

[czyco]

What a great question. I find that when I pick up a book a second time, the story rolls out in my memory before I read the words. This is somewhat of a spoiler, so I have never been able to re-read a book...ever. My wife has re-read books numerous times....I just don't get it.

 

[j d worthington]

Anothing thing which has been mentioned in various ways (in addition to "comfort reading", which I will agree is an attractive factor) is that a good book grows with you, so that the more you learn, and even the more you read, the more dimensions that book takes on with subsequent rereadings. For those of us who enjoy intertextual resonances, there is also that aspect of the various texts altering the way each is read, so that reading those works again is by no means the same experience, but in many ways quite different. (The classic example I see so often is Homer's Odyssey and Joyce's Ulysses, where a knowledge of each has great impact on one's reading of either, making each quite a different book depending on whether you have read the other or not. And, to be frank, different translations of books can also have a wildly different impact. Try reading Homer in the original, then Pope's translation, then in the Andrew Lang translation, then in one of the numerous modern verse translations, and you'll see what I mean. The basic story remains the same, but the experience is anything but....)

In part, I suspect, it depends largely on how closely one reads, as someon who reads a book very closely, for more than just the plot or story, is likely to experience that book differently with each reading; whereas someone who reads it solely (or even primarily) for that, is much less likely to have that happen with them....

 

[Fried Egg]

Funnilly enough I think I'm going to have time for a re-read this month (will be my first in two years). I'm well ahead with my reading schedule (to read six books a month) so it remains only for me to decide which.

I've wanted to go back to "The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch" by Philip K Dick since the moment I finished it. And I've fancied re-reading "The Worm Ouroboros" by E.R. Eddison for a while now. I've also fancied re-reading some of my favourite Lovecraft stories too. Decisions, decisions...

 

[Connavar]

Anothing thing which has been mentioned in various ways (in addition to "comfort reading", which I will agree is an attractive factor) is that a good book grows with you, so that the more you learn, and even the more you read, the more dimensions that book takes on with subsequent rereadings. For those of us who enjoy intertextual resonances, there is also that aspect of the various texts altering the way each is read, so that reading those works again is by no means the same experience, but in many ways quite different. (The classic example I see so often is Homer's Odyssey and Joyce's Ulysses, where a knowledge of each has great impact on one's reading of either, making each quite a different book depending on whether you have read the other or not. And, to be frank, different translations of books can also have a wildly different impact. Try reading Homer in the original, then Pope's translation, then in the Andrew Lang translation, then in one of the numerous modern verse translations, and you'll see what I mean. The basic story remains the same, but the experience is anything but....)

In part, I suspect, it depends largely on how closely one reads, as someon who reads a book very closely, for more than just the plot or story, is likely to experience that book differently with each reading; whereas someone who reads it solely (or even primarily) for that, is much less likely to have that happen with them....

How closely i read depends on the book. If its a great literary book or a fast entertaining book. Someone whose every word or idea,story is magical i read very slowly. So i can take in as much as possible,dont forget the week after.

 

[j d worthington]

I think it goes beyond that, Connavar, into being a critical reader: bringing one's own critical acumen and knowledge (both of life and literature) to a reading, where appropriate. A good book grows with you; it has enough of the writer's experience of life, of their thoughts on the human experience, to where, as you grow and learn, so does what the text has to offer. Layers you simply weren't capable of appreciating before suddenly spring out at you... to the point where you sometimes feel more than a bit obtuse for not having caught them before.

And, of course, this also applies to the writer's use of language; how precise or subtle is that usage? How much does he or she tell you without telling you (so to speak)? Even a single word can play on so many levels that different readings of a work with different aspects or resonances of that word in mind can quite seriously alter one's reading of the work itself. This is especially true in finely-crafted poetry, but can also be quite true of finely-crafted fiction as well.

As a current example: Despite the fact that I have read HPL's "Beyond the Wall of Sleep" more times than I can remember, certain aspects of that opening paragraph are only now striking me so strongly. One such is his use of the word "titanic" in the opening line -- a choice which, when one considers the different associations of that word, "telegraphs" a great deal of what happens in the story, as well as altering the way the story is read, placing it on a mythological level where the scientific precision and tone makes it not a "reduction" of the unusual experiences to the realm of myth (where the "radioactive material", as Macdonald put it) can be safely handled, but where the realm of myth invades our most basic reality, and alters how we view the world... even questioning our ability to understand reality at all. So, in addition to a subtle alteration in how the story itself is read, it adds to my appreciation of the level of craft and subtlety of the work as well.

(And no, I don't think I'm projecting something here. If one reads HPL's letters, or has seen reproductions of his manuscripts, it is evident that this is precisely the level of subtlety, resonance, and artistic coherence he constantly strove for, agonizing over every word both for its precision as a term and for its numerous resonances, as well as its euphoniousness with the rest of the text. I do, however, think I am bringing my own achievement of a certain level of knowledge and appreciation for such things to the reading, which in turn allows me to gather things I simply could not before.)

 

[Connavar]

I think it goes beyond that, Connavar, into being a critical reader: bringing one's own critical acumen and knowledge (both of life and literature) to a reading, where appropriate. A good book grows with you; it has enough of the writer's experience of life, of their thoughts on the human experience, to where, as you grow and learn, so does what the text has to offer. Layers you simply weren't capable of appreciating before suddenly spring out at you... to the point where you sometimes feel more than a bit obtuse for not having caught them before.

I'm waiting to forget more,more of certain books so i can go a discover them all over again when i re-read.

Right now I'm like a explorer in a new land, i dont focus on the old places.

 

[j d worthington]

Yes, you're just discovering the riches out there; it's a heady feeling, isn't it?

My only caution would be to not not allow yourself the pleasure of rereading if you get the urge to. Balance it, yes; and certainly, with your preferences, let the new predominate. But sometimes a reread when you're in the mood can be very refreshing, too; and enjoyable on levels you've not experienced yet....

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

The first time through, I am a rather impatient reader -- I want to know what happens next, so I don't read as carefully as I might. But once I have reached the end, I may go back and reread the parts that impressed me the most, possibly going over them several times. But because of this same impatience to know what happens next, I only read one book at a time, instead of skipping back and forth between two or three as I know that some people do, so at least that first reading does claim my undivided attention.

It's when I go back and reread a book later (which could be a year later or forty years later) that I think I get the most out of it. Then it's like reading an entirely new book. Of course part of that is knowing what to look for as I go along, because I know where it is heading. And part of that is the changes I have gone through, if it has been long enough between readings. When I am reading it as a new person, how can I not understand it in a new way? In that second reading I may fall deeply in love with a book that disappointed me before. For one thing, I can accept it on its own terms, rather than reacting to it according to how close it came to what I hoped or expected it to be. And for another my appreciation of certain aspects of writing may have deepened.

Subsequent readings turn up new things each time, but for me that second reading is the one that is crucial to understanding and appreciating a good (or great) book.

 

[GOLLUM]

My approach is somewhat different.

I like to immerse myself in a book and will reread passages I don't understand or my instincts tell me there's more to prior to proceeding further.

As a result, I rarely read the same book twice except for some authors e.g Gene Wolfe, where it's next to impossible to garner everything upon a single reading.

When it comes to reviews I''ll reread certain sections/extracts to remind myself what it is I wish to convey about a particular work but never the entire book. A short story may prove to be the occasional exception to this but not the rule.

LOTR is the only book I've really read multiple times and that because it somehow holds a magical spell over me that I cannot for the life of me understand why, which is perhaps for the better.........

For me life's too short to revisit texts as I'm discovering there's still sooo much great writing out there in the land they call World Literature.

This is no doubt a partially imperfect road I do tread but I'm content enough with my decision.....

 

[Werewoman]

I do this weird thing with music. If I really like a particular song, I'll put on the head phones and focus on one instrument, say, just the drums or the piano, and listen intently to only that instrument. I'll do that with every instrument in the song over and over again.

I do a similar thing with books too. I'll focus on my favorite character and really try to absorb what the author is trying to convey about that character. Then I'll re-read the book and focus on the scenery maybe, or a different character. I'll pick it apart until I feel I've completely understood all that the author is trying to convey. I've done it with Worms of the Earth by REH, The Dark Tower series by Stephen King, and In Country by Bobbie Ann Mason. LOTR is the one I'd like to do next, but my books are in storage at the moment.

Yeah, I know, I'm weird. I warned you I was 'wered'...