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.
I read Catcher in the Rye as a teen and enjoyed Holden's angst.
Now I'm approaching middle age. Last year I was looking for books to read in a language I'm learning. I decided to re-read Catcher, and to my surprise, found it heartbreaking. I mostly remembered the plot, but it was a completely different book to me as a man than as a boy.
Everything Holden does is in the shadow of his grief over his dead brother. As a kid, that flew over my head. I couldn't have understood the hole in your heart that comes from losing someone you deeply love and admire. I didn't get the sad chain of cause and effect - there are hints at how it affects everyone in his family.
It's a beautiful and subtle book, and it rewards re-reading later in life.
I was like the GP, thought I'd missed my "window" with that book - I tried reading as a late teen, but found Holden so unpleasant a character (he reminded me of kids I'd known, who'd been awful people) - so I never returned to it. Your comment made me interested to try again. Thank you.
Just as a counter point, I found catcher absolute shite and I have no idea why anyone ranks it so highly. It’s one of those books everyone claims is their favourite however it’s immediately clear to me when someone says that, that they’re not much of a reader.
Which is fine, I’m glad they enjoyed it and whatever but personally I thought it was a bad poorly written book that doesn’t deserve anywhere near the love it gets.
I don't feel like dying on the hill of Catcher in the Rye - while I think it's a good book and worth reading, I have no desire to write about it beyond the words I chose in my comment above. But I have to say that your comment here is of exactly the kind that diminishes the quality of Hacker News. Mindless name-calling: "absolute shite," "bad poorly written book," and you sneer that anyone who claims it as a favorite is "not much of a reader." No reasons, no evidence or examples, just name-calling. Ironically, your own comment, in ignoring the context and content of the whole thread, which was about the merits of reading and re-reading, seems to suggest you're "not much of a reader" yourself.
What you offer is not a "counterpoint," as you put it. It's the equivalent of: "I don't like ketchup, ketchup is bad, people who like ketchup are stupid."
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?
I've re-read things in school, when thinking through them and writing essays. But to re-read a good book, something truly meaningful, its not appropriate until it has come back to me by its own nature, when many years later I'm reminded of it again, and again, and again, and then I go back and it feels like I'm reading it for the very first time.
Another ~~waste of ink~~ article that espouses getting as much as possible done - be as productive as possible - because someday you'll die and lose your chance to make progress.
Reading for fun is OK. Re-reading is OK. Watching TV is OK. Playing videogames is OK. Enjoying life is OK.
Not being productive for more than two seconds is OK.
> getting as much as possible done - be as productive as possible
I didn't get this at all as a main thrust of the article.
The author doesn't like re-reading the works that impacted him the most, because he feels he loses some of that impact and takes a step backwards in his enjoyment when he rereads.
I have felt that, at times. Especially when re-reading too soon. I notice new things; I enjoy the world again; but I often look back at the work less fondly after this is done. In the end, we can't just to who we were reading the work for the first time.
I liked reading the article because it helped me understand part of why I often feel that way.
>Another ~~waste of ink~~ article that espouses getting as much as possible done - be as productive as possible - because someday you'll die and lose your chance to make progress.
> Reading for fun is OK.
I think you missed the point. It's not about productivity. Quite the opposite. Here's how the author characterizes rereading in one passage: "Rereading, thus conceived, begins to sound a bit like a punishing self-improvement regime. I can imagine a life coach promoting rereading as part of a lifestyle package, along with nootropic supplements." In another passage, the author compares rereading to a futile attempt to recapture lost youth.
The point of life being short isn't about maximizing productivity but rather about maximizing enjoyment, which is ironically what you thought you were arguing for. By constantly rereading, you're depriving yourself of the enjoyment of the new, of novelty. Rereading has diminishing returns: "There was an immediacy, intensity, and complete surrender involved in the initial experience that could never be repeated and was sometimes even diminished on the second pass."
Nailed it. Personally, if I were to write something like this, it would be in the realm of "Against taking notes in books?" As in, if you wanna reread it, great, and if not, that's okay too. You might find one thing I enjoy which is how a book can be very different the 2nd or whatever time.
Regarding videogames and TV, to some people it isn't. Videogames for some people provide such an effective escape from real life it becomes like a drug in it's short term effects.
Similar to alcohol and other substances, for some people it's ok to enjoy from time to time, for some it can ruin their life
And for some people, the same thing is done with... work. Most of us wouldn't think of it as an escape from real life, but for some people it is. Overworking and dying young from it isn't just an issue for very physically demanding jobs either.
Basically anything can become an obsession that makes everything else go away, at least for some people.
Sure but with work if you escape the cycle you are left with money and skills that are useful in real life. Games are just a temporary sedative that can lead to depression and anxiety about the real world while not providing anything truly useful. At least they are for me. I had health problems a year ago that lasted for about 4 months so I had an excuse to start playing again so instead of losing 4 months I lost 6 or 7 and then another 2 months to adjust to real life again when I realized I'm wasting my life in a video game and was becoming really depressed
> Is the compulsion to reread a regression to this infantile state? A denial of maturation? Margaret Atwood suggests that it might be when she compares it to “thumb-sucking” and “hot-water bottles”; she admits that she does rereads only for “comfort, familiarity, the recurrence of the expected.” This also might be the reason why so much rereading apologia is written by those for whom the glow of youth has long passed by
I think about how our society, or at least our economy, appears to possess an endless appetite for series, sequels, prequels, remakes, reboots, adaptations, and spin-offs, ad naseam. For some strange reason, in middle age, the pop culture of my youth has come to be fetishized by the present, even long after I've personally lost interest. I grew up, matured, but it can feel like nobody else did. I enjoy finding new work, novel novels, as it were, and usually eschew rereading. There's so much to discover, so why limit yourself to what you already happened to know at a much earlier point? Sometimes when I do revisit something I enjoyed in the past, I find that it doesn't hold up. I may have originally overlooked certain flaws or other problematic aspects of the work that are apparent to me now. One's sensibilities can change and evolve.
Even speaking academically, some of the most important, influential articles and books I've ever read, that turned my head around, were ones that I've read only once. They affected me so profoundly that I didn't need to reread them.
And other works by Adorno, such as Minima Moralia. It comes from Benjamin, of course, but Benjamin's conception is more complex and Adorno serves as a better introduction.
I came to this article wondering if it was going to make a case based on research in cognition, learning or memory. A few lines in I caught the whiff of an opinion piece and handed it off to an LLM to find out there was anything not opinion or anecdote. The readout came up empty.
If you're like me, hopefully that information is useful for you.
the question i am asking myself is, do i want to explore something new or am i seeking comfort in a story i already know.
btw, i disagree with the statistics. it depends on how you choose the next book. i am in a book club and we nominate half a dozen titles each month and then vote on what we read. in two years about half the books were really good. the others were ok. but thanks to the discussion with the others afterwards even the not so good books provide value, especially to aspiring writers.
there is a lot of variety and also trash out there. so if you just pick a book randomly, then statistically you'll read something that is not to your liking. but if you rely on recommendations then statistics should not matter anymore, but rather how much your taste aligns with those making the recommendations.
I guess I am just picky, but I have a very hard time finding books that I want to read. I find the great majority of books either tedious or eye-rolling, and sometimes both.
Unfortunately, the books I like reading the most tend to be the hardest to write, so they are not released very frequently. I like the sorts of books that authors spend several months or years thinking about and planning for.
When I like a book, I almost always find value in re-reading it several times because it gives me an opportunity to dig in and analyze it. I will typically read a good book 2-3 times, and I usually like the second reading the best. My first reading is just a general impression, but my second reading is where I see everything in context and can really savor the author's clever plotting and writing style.
This is my general approach to a lot of other media as well. I dislike most movies, but the movies I most like are the ones that are sufficiently dense and interesting that they merit a re-watch or two. For every good movie I have re-watched and greatly enjoyed myself, I have watched dozens of completely forgettable movies that I immediately wished I hadn't bothered with.
Do you have any examples of books you enjoy? Cause I imagine a vast majority of books over like 300 pages took "several months" of thinking and planning.
I have a friend who is against rereading. She is a full-time consumer of content...books, movies, TV shows. She neither rereads nor rewatches, except for rewatching the occasional movie. Once she consumes something, she relegates it to a kind of "been there, done that" part of her brain where many things she consumes get lost.
I've never explored this deeply with her, and I'm not sure whether her attitude is one of "gotta catch 'em all", a continual requirement for novelty, or if she simply never, ever considers anything worth reading/watching again (with a few exceptions). She simply doesn't understand why I occasionally want to watch or read something I enjoyed hugely in the past, or don't think I got quite enough out of the first time. To her, my habits are a waste of time.
i think i get your point. on one hand the article doesn't even really deserve the time to write any comment. on the other hand its pretentiousness and attention here opens a dissonance which one seeks to resolve. i mean, why even make a fuss about that at all about reading a book again? i like a book. i might reread it again. someone else begs to differ, shall they seek heaven in their own fashion. i reread a number of books and it was always a pleasure.
Well, Sylvester (see footnote), or Euclid, whatever your name is, I think you get what I’m saying.
Footnote: on rereading your message, the sequence 2,3,7,43,1807 jumped out at me as being “Sylvester’s sequence” — sometimes called Euclid numbers — I definitely did not have to look that up in the online integer sequence database and simply know all these things intuitively.
I rarely ever reread stuff. My memory’s not perfect but it’s good enough that rereading something feels like having a guy sitting behind me at a movie yelling out what’s about to happen. It ends up being a not very enjoyable experience for me.
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.