Reading Again.

[Seasider]

I find that however much I have enjoyed a book I am reluctant to read it again even after a long time lapse.When I start a book I am often thrilled by entering the new world of the author and characters and I feel that a second visit would not be as interesting.
I can see my favourite films any number of times and of course a play is worth seeing again because of the differences in interpretation and the hope that the quality of the acting might be better than previously. But books, especially ones that I have enjoyed...I prefer to keep the initial pleasure intact and unalloyed.

[Emil Miller]

I find that however much I have enjoyed a book I am reluctant to read it again even after a long time lapse.When I start a book I am often thrilled by entering the new world of the author and characters and I feel that a second visit would not be as interesting.
I can see my favourite films any number of times and of course a play is worth seeing again because of the differences in interpretation and the hope that the quality of the acting might be better than previously. But books, especially ones that I have enjoyed...I prefer to keep the initial pleasure intact and unalloyed.

There are usually some books that a person might not think worthy of a repeat reading but, with the passage of time, certain aspects of books that have been enjoyed sometimes begin to fade and by rereading them they come up as fresh as when first read. Then there are those books which have various levels of meaning that need to be revisited to comprehend their full potential.
Novels that are particularly well written also provide a lot of pleasure on rereading, if not for the storyline, then for the artistry with which it has been constructed.

[dfloyd]

I am currently rereading Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter after reading it many years ago. While I remember much about the story line, the artistry of the writing is very enjoyable.

Last year, rereading Magham's Of Human Bondage gave me the same pleasure.

However, rereading genre books don't give me the same pleasure. Rereading the James Bond novels, or even Le Carre's espionage novels or Raymond Chandler's crime novels, do not yield the same pleasure. This leads me to conclude that rereads are justified by the complexity of the book and the writing skill of the author.

[Seasider]

I understand why anyone might be reluctant to reread a Whodunnit, but Chandler's books are much more than that and he is a far better writer than Fleming or Le Carre.

[Kafka's Crow]

It is the sheer amount of time involved in reading a big book that makes it daunting to re-read them. I am a painfully slow reader and rely heavily on audiobooks. Recently I finished readin Thomas Mann's The Magic Mountain and it is a huge book. I had planned reading it for almost 20 years but was afraid of giving up midway. I did not give up and I am so glad I did not because it is almost as rewarding a read as anything by Dostoevsky although Mann's book is harder work to get through. Now I have a copy of Robert Mussil's The Man without Qualities sitting on my desk beckoning/ scaring me for over a year. I thoroughly enjoyed The Magic Mountain but will I read it again? I can't say yes with all certainty.

[namenlose]

I agree with Kafka's Crow about the limitation of time being perhaps the worst obstacle to rereading, which tends to become a greater problem in adulthood. However, to reread a book is to me one of the most edifying activities I invest my time into, and I would not give that up easily. As one's impressions profoundly change through the time of one's life, the personal value of books also change. Many of my favorite pieces of literature would mean no more to me than the numerous other works I enjoyed had I not taken my time to reread them.

[ladderandbucket]

I think I actually prefer reading my favourite books the second time around. On the first reading I always feel a tension between enjoying the prose and wanting to rush ahead and find out what happens. When rereading a book there is no pressure, I can enjoy the book for what it is rather than what I think it might be.

In an ideal world I would like to read every book twice but, as has already been said, time is short and rereading is an expensive luxury at the cost of a book I would not otherwise have read.

[Corona]

I know what you mean because I feel the same. It's like if I... I would dispice the thought reading a book again would be a delusion when finding out it's not as good as when you read it the first time.
That's why I have never been able to re-read "The smile at the foot of the ladder", a short novel by Henry Miller, a very nice one which happened to be my favourite book like 5 years ago. I'm quite sure I wouldn't like it very much now, but I somehow fear having to feel that way!
Anyway, generally speaking, reading a book again is better, especially when it comes to classics, and a re-reading - and possibly a third and a fourth one... - reveals the real quality of the work. Not to mention some books HAVE to be read many times, at least part of them, just to catch a great deal of details or to understand how it works.
Take Dante's Commedia, or Joyce's Ulysses, for example: one cannot honestly believe a reading is enough!
But it also depends on how you perceive literature or art itself.

[Humming Bee]

I read some books dozens of times and neither I grow bored with them nor like them less. Coming back to the fictional world, especially one that I liked, is a pure pleasure. I think, some fragments of my favourite books I know by heart now and in spite of that I don’t mind reading them again.
Also, I don’t think that re-reading one book would affect other reading-adventures. More probably, I would do something completely different – it’s not that I have fixed time for reading, like Mondays and Wednesdays at 5 p.m. I read when I feel like doing it and sometimes I prefer to take a book that I know I will enjoy than to try unknown one.
The only thing that I lack is that thrill of surprise, lack of possibility to guess what will happen after, who’s the mysterious criminal and so on. On the other hand I can enjoy some little details, linking some author’s tips, I didn’t give a hoot at first reading, with the final solution.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Well, Wilde's cold assessment on re-reading was that if a book isn't worth reading twice then it is not worth reading at all. That's quite a strong argument I think.

[Dark Muse]

For me I just feel there are too many books I haven't read yet to go back and read ones I have already read. I do not deny the value that can be had in rereading and I have reread a few things here and there, and there are books I would not mind rereading given the right opportunity. But generally I simply prefer the new experience to revisiting an experience already been had (even if a second reading might indeed offer something the first did not). I cannot altogether justify to myself picking up and reading a book a 2nd time win I have a shelf full of books that have not been read for the first time yet.

[Drkshadow03]

I've re-read books in the past for all the reasons already listed: you start forgetting aspects, you pick up on new things, if I enjoyed it the first time why wouldn't I enjoy it the second time (you don't eat a wonderful piece of steak once and then refuse to ever eat steak again, after all). To add another possibility, I even re-read books I disliked sometimes to see if my opinions changed as I matured as both a reader and gained new life experiences; there are quite a few books that I enjoyed and appreciated the second time I read them (Wharton's Ethan Frome comes to mind), which I passionately disliked the first time.

I tried to implement a rule for myself that I would re-read at least 4 books a year as part of my yearly goal of reading 50 works. That way I would fit in new reads (46 new books a year), but I would force myself to rotate some re-reads into the mix every year (so over 5 years I would re-read 20 different works). The problem is I found the goal idealistic rather than practical as I've been failing to meet my goal of 50 books a year.

So I haven't re-read a book in awhile (I re-read The Catcher in the Rye in 2009), except for some select passages here and there (such as HP to support some of my arguments in the HP thread and various bits of poetry). I'm at a point where I feel there are way too many books I haven't read that I want to spend my limited time re-reading. Maybe one day I'll get back to making sure I include re-reads because there is definitely value in it.

[Aylinn]

I am reading mostly books which I have not read, but I think I will return to some of them. I can definitely see myself rereading Anna Karenina, War and Peace, and some other great books at some point in the future, but not in the near future, because they are too fresh in my mind right now. I don't set any date when I will do it. I will do it when I feel like rereading them.

[kev67]

The only book I can remember re-reading as an adult is Dead Man's Walk by Larry McMurtry, which was a prequel to Lonesome Dove. Otherwise, there is too much to read and too little time.

[Seasider]

I read Point Counterpoint as an undergraduate and thought it an amazing book. I decided to reread it about 10 years after the first time and I found it superficial and shallow. The only part I remembered which had impressed me previously was the little boy dying of meningitis. Based on something in Huxley's own life I was told.
I think it was this that stopped me from rereading as I didnt want to be disappointed again as I was with this one.

[lichtrausch]

I read Point Counterpoint as an undergraduate and thought it an amazing book. I decided to reread it about 10 years after the first time and I found it superficial and shallow. The only part I remembered which had impressed me previously was the little boy dying of meningitis. Based on something in Huxley's own life I was told.
I think it was this that stopped me from rereading as I didnt want to be disappointed again as I was with this one.

On the other hand, you learn something about yourself when you reread a book from many years ago. You get to see how your tastes have evolved.

[Kafka's Crow]

I have read Ulysses 8 times and Beckett's Trilogy countless times but they were read for my coursework and theses and I had to read them many times to understand them thoroughly. In my youth I read Shakespeare's plays again and again. I read them so many times that I knew the whole texts of King Lear and Hamlet by heart. Now I just don't have the time. I am reading Don Quixote these days and although it is a huge book with over 900 pages, I am enjoying it thoroughly as it is such a delightfully light reading. I don't think I will ever re-read this one either because of the size of the book.

[Corona]

I have read Ulysses 8 times and Beckett's Trilogy countless times but they were read for my coursework and theses and I had to read them many times to understand them thoroughly. In my youth I read Shakespeare's plays again and again. I read them so many times that I knew the whole texts of King Lear and Hamlet by heart. Now I just don't have the time. I am reading Don Quixote these days and although it is a huge book with over 900 pages, I am enjoying it thoroughly as it is such a delightfully light reading. I don't think I will ever re-read this one either because of the size of the book.

Interesting, since I'm going to read Beckett's trilogy - I read somewhere it's ranked as the greatest literary work of the 20th century - and Shakespeare's King Lear.
Speaking of Shakespeare, I've read Hamlet twice and I can safely say reading it again helped me shed some light about some of the questions raised by the text.
Also, I'm yet to read Don Quixote, but I'm gonna do it someday.