/lit/ - Literature

>>14081528
OP is a faggot. Sage.

>>14081528
The way that phrase is worded is cringe, but the sentiment is based. Rereading books is the only way to full understand them.

Even the way Wittgenstein writes is very logical, but he has a point, Reading is an art just as writing, one can discover new things from a re-lecture.

>>14081538
Truly a based sentiment. Recently reread Phaedo after a few years to have an almost entirely novel experience; I had probably comprehended and put into my working knowledge < 50% of the content within on my first read.

>>14081536
Why so?

>>14081528
>If you never re-eat food, you've never eaten a thing in your life.
welp, time to eat my own shit i guess

It’s a smart take on reading in general. Seldom does anyone remember most of a book, even some, after a year. It makes it worth it to go back and reread it and you may even pick up on a few things and have a better understanding of it. Same applies to movies but more so with books since they are longer and have more detail.

Did Wittgenstein even say this?

>>14081618
Nope, it was me, the OP. I just put Witty there because it was the only pic laying around in my desktop. But have this (actual) quote by him, though. He was pretty based.

>I was walking about in Cambridge and passed a bookshop, and in the window were portraits of Russell, Freud and Einstein.4 A little further on, in a music shop, I saw portraits of Beethoven, Schubert and Chopin. Comparing these portraits I felt intensely the terrible degeneration that had come over the human spirit in the course of only a hundred years.

>>14081528
based

>>14081528
I strongly disagree. There are so many books out there, and you only have so much time. I’d much rather read new books. Here is a thought experiment. Let’s say you read a book and extracted 60% of its content/value. Then you read it again 5 years later and extract another 10%. Even if you pull something new from a book you’ve already read, you’ve already know most of the plot and big concepts already. You would gain much more from a completely different book. I almost never rewatch movies or tv shows either.

>>14082692
>I strongly disagree. There are so many books out there, and you only have so much time.

Brainlet opinion.

>>14082692
Nice thought experiment

>>14081528
reminds me of what I say about media generally:
>if it's worth reading once, it's worth reading twice
>if it's not worth reading twice, it's not even worth reading once
that set of phrases would be more concise in Chinese characters, but you get the point
any work of sufficient depth or complexity that matters to you should be re-read periodically. I just re-read On Social Contract for the first time since I was a teenager, and came across a passage in book 4, chapter 2, I didn't register the first time which scandalized me so completely I spent days thinking about it

>>14082692
>you’ve already know most of the plot and big concepts already
Would you never reread poetry for this reason? If a book moves you, why not go back? When it comes to fiction or philosophy, going back is good.

>>14081528
One of the first things I felt when I finished Notes from the Underground was that I would really love to read it again and I will probably do so in a year or two (and compare different translations at the same time).

>>14082692
There are so many books out there and most of them are utter trash. Why not reread a 10/10 book and relive the experience and strengthen its influence and retention, rather than reading trash #983435

>>14082692
you're absolutely right if you're talking about simpler media: episodic TV, magazines, and other disposable media are created to be consumed then thrown away.
also any nonfiction books that don't aim and succeed at making the competition obsolete and attaining classic status should be borrowed from a library.
but anything that rewards deep reading, which is too detailed to pick up on everything from the first reading demands a second reading at minimum.
then there are works that possess seemingly endless depths of meaning within them, which can be experienced with pleasure and wonder numerous times throughout your life without having exhausted their richness.
clearly different people interact with the same media differently, and personal taste is also a factor, but I agree that most media is shallow and doesn't reward multiple tries

>>14083270
This. So much. You can't compare Moby Dick to #324532 generic TV show.

>>14081528
>novel(la)
Sure I do. Nowadays I read mostly for words and impressions so I have no problem whatsoever to revisit places and refeel emotions.
>philosophy treatise
I haven't reread only Seneca's writings. After first reading I usually get the grasp and with the second I start to appreciate every word.

>>14081574
Don't be discouraged, anon.

>>14081528
>If you never re-reread any books, you've never read a book in your life. Re-Reading books is a way to discover books to be re-reread.

>>14083837

this is why you just skip reading them and just reread them first, that way you don't have to read them twice

>>14081574
I’ve actually thought sometimes that you get the taste better the second time you try a dish

>>14083248
How many books have you read in your life? If you consider the top 1000 books in human history, do you really think number #872 would be trash? The human experience is so wide that I’m still picking up new things that I’ve never thought of.

Currently I’m reading “The Dark Forest” from the 3 body trilogy. Before this trilogy, I read Red Storm Rising. These are both pretty damn popular but not part of the “canon,” yet I’ve learned much from them. Even after reading the classics, there is still so much to discover. Broaden your horizons.

>>14081528
very based and true.

One of the thing that a second reading provides us is the feeling of not being surpised anymore. Plot ceases to matter as a means of creating surprise, suspense or anything that depends on withholding information from the reader. When you reread a work you're able to get more of why the author chose to structure the novel, and you can focus on the prose even more.

>>14081528
>Curiously enough, one cannot read a book; one can only reread it. A good reader, a major reader, and active and creative reader is a rereader.
Based Nabby knows all

>>14084298
Based as fuck.