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.
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.
> 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-ma...
* 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.
"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."
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.
... He was bemoaning himself this morning because he could not get someone to go halves with him in some nice rooms which he had found, and which were too much for his purse.” “By Jove!” I cried, “if he really wants someone to share the rooms and the expense, I am the very man for him. I should prefer having a partner to being alone.
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!
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.
Knowing how the story ends can sometimes even make it better, when it's a really great story.
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.
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.
- Gene Wolfe, from a chain letter to George R.R. Martin and Greg Benford