Do you re-read? Why?

[dickon25]

Just about the only books I ever re-read are 'classics', particularly Jane Austen and Dickens. I do it for the wonderful rich language - I don't think anyone sets a period scene like Austen.

I immerse myself in a book and love the flow of it but I find that with most books, knowing the story and how it ends is enough........until I start the next one. Having said that, I once found an old paperback in a second-hand shop which was called 'The Man Who Awoke' by Laurence Manning - an SF tale which was so thought-provoking I must have re-read it twenty times! (No accounting for taste, I know!).

[tompe]

Since I am rereading Charles Stross Mercant Prince series I realised that one reason for rereading a book is that it is only half a book. I bought book number four but that is really part two of book two so I needed to reread book number 3 to get the experience of reading one book but then I thought I just reread the first two also.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by tompe

Since I am rereading Charles Stross Mercant Prince series I realised that one reason for rereading a book is that it is only half a book. I bought book number four but that is really part two of book two so I needed to reread book number 3 to get the experience of reading one book but then I thought I just reread the first two also.

I think that may be the case for continuing series even among folks who don't normally reread. If there is a long enough delay between installments, going back and rereading may be required to refresh your memory on the world, the characters, and the events.

I anticipate a marathon re-read session some time down the road when Brian Sanderson completes the unfinished last book of the Wheel of Time series.
______
Dennis

[Slite]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I think that may be the case for continuing series even among folks who don't normally reread. If there is a long enough delay between installments, going back and rereading may be required to refresh your memory on the world, the characters, and the events.

I anticipate a marathon re-read session some time down the road when Brian Sanderson completes the unfinished last book of the Wheel of Time series.
______
Dennis

Oh dear lord, a re-read of Wheel of Time .... I shudder at the thought....

I don't think I could ever do that, especially not since I don't really feel that they are that good. I've been rwading them more or less out of some stubborn streak or something

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Slite

Oh dear lord, a re-read of Wheel of Time .... I shudder at the thought....

I don't think I could ever do that, especially not since I don't really feel that they are that good. I've been rwading them more or less out of some stubborn streak or something

I like them well enough. I held off on them for some time, because they got the sort of extravagant praise that tends to put me off. Tor published the first half of the first book as a free giveaway PB edition. I read it on a slow afternoon, liked it well enough to buy the full book to see what happened, and buy them now in HC.

A correspondent elsewhere called it "Familiar elements, but in a tasty stew", and I think that's apt. I am impressed by Jordan's world building, his ability to keep a dozen plot threads going while not marring continuity, and his ability to give each character a unique enough "voice" that you generally aren't confused about who is talking.

It's been long enough that I will need to do some re-reading to refresh myself. We'll see if I successfully start from the beginning. I'm a fast reader, but they are large volumes.
______
Dennis

[Over]

One thing I noticed is that many people here read very fast. Could that also be related to why you must re-read to fully assimilate a book or refresh your memories? Or is it that I'm just a very slow reader?

[Dave Berk]

I'm rereading TWoT myself now. Up to book 4 - The Shadow Rising, and I really wish I had them as ebooks. I have it in old pbooks version, the paper is yellowed with age and the stuff is HEAVY, it's really uncomfortable reading in bed. Also I stored them in an old room we have, and I really feel as if it's crawling with all sort of bugs... Can't read them at the table... what can I say - ebooks spoiled me.

PS. I tried getting them off BT, but they were so terrible formated I couldn't read them.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Over

One thing I noticed is that many people here read very fast. Could that also be related to why you must re-read to fully assimilate a book or refresh your memories? Or is it that I'm just a very slow reader?

I'm not sure there's a connection. I read quickly, but also tend to remember what I read. The problems come in things like series, where there can be a long wait for the next volume. ("Wheel of Time" author Robert Jordan got progressively farther behind, and at one point was put up in a hotel by his publisher so there would be no distractions while he finished the next book. )

The outlines may stick, but the details can slip away.

I also re-read when I'm in what an old friend called a "comfortable old shoe" mood, where an old favorite satisfies the particular emotional itch. And I re-read for language: E.R. Eddison's _The Worm Ouroboros_ goes down like fine cognac. In addition, some books are rich and complex enough that you find new things each time you read them. I've re-read Tolkien's _Lord of the Rings about once a year for years, and find more each time.
______
Dennis

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I think that may be the case for continuing series even among folks who don't normally reread. If there is a long enough delay between installments, going back and rereading may be required to refresh your memory on the world, the characters, and the events.

I've read Neverness three times, The Broken God twice, The Wild once...but I've yet to get around to reading The War in Heaven. The reason for this is because then I'd have to read Neverness a fourth time, The Broken God a third time and The Wild a second time...and it's hard to dedicate that time when there are so many other books to read.

I think this was the series that finally tipped Asimov's Foundation series from the top position in "My favourite SF series" list...though the reservation that I haven't completed the whole series yet sits as a conditional placement. So, I don't know why I haven't started the re-reading process yet.

(I also re-read the first four of King's The Dark Tower series. Only the fourth book annoyed - I never liked Wizard & Glass as I felt that this "back story" should have been included over several books, amidst and complementing other action. It felt like a "treading water" book to me; something to fill in the gap while he figured out the details of the "live" plot).

I anticipate a marathon re-read session some time down the road when Brian Sanderson completes the unfinished last book of the Wheel of Time series.

The Wheel of Time series is the one that had me put my foot down: No reading series books unless the series has been completed by the author. I will never finish that series. I will never re-read the ones I've already read, as I wasn't overly enamoured of them anyway.

Originally Posted by Over

One thing I noticed is that many people here read very fast. Could that also be related to why you must re-read to fully assimilate a book or refresh your memories? Or is it that I'm just a very slow reader?

I don't read all that fast. People assume I do, because I read so much (well, not lately - too much time being spent on MR ), but generally the speed I go through books is through the large amount of time I spend reading, rather than the speed at which I read.

Yet, I reread, because I have a compulsion to "not miss a thing". I'm like this with watching movies. At home, when the lights go out for the entertainment, you better shut up, and the dogs better be in their place, and nobody better ring, from the moment the first opening credit comes on-screen (including the production company's guff) until the last closing credit rolls off. Likewise, with books, I need to reread to ensure that all detail has been properly assimilated, and no detail forgotten that might be important (especially when, in the time intervening while waiting for the next book in a series to come out, I've read other books). I have an appalling short-term memory, which everything must pass through to get to long-term, and so I have a "concentration" and "reinforcement" requirement. As the Loved One tells me, "You've only got a single stream processor" (or sometimes "You can't walk and chew gum at the same time" ).

I generally try to avoid re-reading though (thus the rule about series). I've read Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance three times (in an attempt at complete comprehension), and Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas twice (because it's just so bloody good), but it's not something I do often.

Cheers,
Marc

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by montsnmags

I've read Neverness three times, The Broken God twice, The Wild once...but I've yet to get around to reading The War in Heaven. The reason for this is because then I'd have to read Neverness a fourth time, The Broken God a third time and The Wild a second time...and it's hard to dedicate that time when there are so many other books to read.

I read Neverness and liked it a lot, but I managed to miss the rest. Must remedy that lack at some point.

I think this was the series that finally tipped Asimov's Foundation series from the top position in "My favourite SF series" list...though the reservation that I haven't completed the whole series yet sits as a conditional placement. So, I don't know why I haven't started the re-reading process yet.

I liked the Foundation series (and knew and liked Asimov), but while it's undoubtedly "classic", I'm not sure it's a "favorite". I'd have to think a bit about what is, aside from LoTR.

The Wheel of Time series is the one that had me put my foot down: No reading series books unless the series has been completed by the author. I will never finish that series. I will never re-read the ones I've already read, as I wasn't overly enamoured of them anyway.

<chuckle>

I mentioned elsewhere recommending Dan Simmons' _Hyperion Cantos_ to a friend. Bantam published the first HC edition as two PBs, but didn't indicate on the first book it was part one of two. My friend ran into the cliffhanger at the end of the first PB, and was so incensed her refused to read anything else Simmons wrote. I told him it wasn't Simmons' fault that the publisher was an idiot, but to no avail.

<...>

Yet, I reread, because I have a compulsion to "not miss a thing". I'm like this with watching movies. At home, when the lights go out for the entertainment, you better shut up, and the dogs better be in their place, and nobody better ring, from the moment the first opening credit comes on-screen (including the production company's guff) until the last closing credit rolls off. Likewise, with books, I need to reread to ensure that all detail has been properly assimilated, and no detail forgotten that might be important (especially when, in the time intervening while waiting for the next book in a series to come out, I've read other books). I have an appalling short-term memory, which everything must pass through to get to long-term, and so I have a "concentration" and "reinforcement" requirement. As the Loved One tells me, "You've only got a single stream processor" (or sometimes "You can't walk and chew gum at the same time" ).

I can multitask, but there are limitations. For instance, I can't ignore the TV. "Voices" compel me to pay attention. I can have music as a background activity. The SO watches far more TV than I, and w ears headphones to spare me.

My SO can get totally lost in a book, and suddenly come back to Earth with a startled grunt. "Omigosh! I'm sorry!" "You were reading. I'm used to it. Not a problem..."

I generally try to avoid re-reading though (thus the rule about series). I've read Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance three times (in an attempt at complete comprehension), and Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas twice (because it's just so bloody good), but it's not something I do often.

I've read "Zen", though not re-read. Likewise "Fear and Loathing". Hunter was a strange dude.

I recall a letter of comment to Rolling Stone back when on the order of "Dear Hunter Thompson: We think you are a great writer. But if you ever came to our town, we'd lock you in the closet and run like crazy f*****s!"

I think I understand just how they felt.

Marc

______
Dennis

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I read Neverness and liked it a lot, but I managed to miss the rest. Must remedy that lack at some point.

Neverness is a great classic. The Broken God series ending with War in Heaven is very good but does not compare - I found the main character which is the son by his half-sister of the one in Neverness completely unrealistic. Still a worthwhile read and War in Heaven is one of the saddest sf books I've read though the ending is uplifting to some degree.

For me the most read book is most likely Use of Weapons by IM Banks which is my top standalone sff book ever and I've read maybe 15, maybe 20 times in 15 years or so. For sf series Night's Dawn is top of the finished ones and HH top of the continuing ones and I've reread the 3500+pages - if you include short stories and encyclopedia - of Night's Dawn several times, and the HH novels many times each - hard to count but I estimate On Basilisk Station 10+ times, At all Costs 10+ times since these are still my top two.

Right now the only standalone that may top UoW in say 15 years is Anathem which I've already read 5 times but it's too early to tell.

Of non sff some books I've read many times including recently are the Dumas cycles of the Revolution, Louis XIII-XIV, Renaissance,and Empire in that order of preferemce- first volumes are Joseph Balsamo, Three Musketeers, Queen Margot, Whites and Blues respectively

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I read Neverness and liked it a lot, but I managed to miss the rest. Must remedy that lack at some point.

It's been an interesting series. They seem to separate Neverness from the rest, though I'm unsure why, as it has felt, to me, to be part of the series. Perhaps Neverness is to A Requiem for Homo Sapiens what The Hobbit is to LotR. One reader on MR mentioned that she(?) felt that Neverness could and possibly should be read after reading the others, which I thought was very interesting - well, it re-piqued my interest in finally completing the series anyway.

I liked the Foundation series (and knew and liked Asimov), but while it's undoubtedly "classic", I'm not sure it's a "favorite". I'd have to think a bit about what is, aside from LoTR.

I should probably include some of the Robot books in there as well, but I mean to be quite specific about referring to the Foundation series as "favourite" rather than "best". I read them in my early-to-mid-teen's, as fiction reading had not all that long become my...salvation?...well, certainly my main focus (I did chronically introverted, angst-ridden teen' really well ). Books from that period of time (The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, Saga of the Exiles, and, naturally, LoTR) maintain a golden status as "favourites", in much the same way as The Goodies or Monkey (Magic!) did for me with TV.

As much as I disliked many aspects of my youth, the bits I did like achieve some pre-eminence, especially in the glow of the subconscious realisation that I had everything ahead of me. Today...not so much. I also think that because my memory can seem so difficult to imprint at times, the things from long past that I do recollect obtain significant bias.

I mentioned elsewhere recommending Dan Simmons' _Hyperion Cantos_ to a friend. Bantam published the first HC edition as two PBs, but didn't indicate on the first book it was part one of two. My friend ran into the cliffhanger at the end of the first PB, and was so incensed her refused to read anything else Simmons wrote. I told him it wasn't Simmons' fault that the publisher was an idiot, but to no avail.

Yeah, that's definitely up near the top of the list. Less so, his Ilium & Olympos. I feel like he tried to allude to and reference and do too much in them (and they could possibly win an award for "Least Scary Boss Monster Of The Year" - that is, in Setebos, not Caliban who was suitably monstrous ). I still enjoyed them, though I found the Hyperion Cantos to be far more pleasurable (in that case, I would probably say "better").

I can multitask, but there are limitations. For instance, I can't ignore the TV. "Voices" compel me to pay attention. I can have music as a background activity. The SO watches far more TV than I, and w ears headphones to spare me.

I do not do multitasking very well. Some friends wondered how I managed to satisfactorily do my former job as "IT Project Manager" (which, I humbly must admit, I was rather good at), what with multiple setup, testing, re-testing, and live retail banking application conversions over multiple machines and multiple financial organisation customers simultaneously...all this if I can't multitask. The thing is, I didn't multitask - I just set things so that they came to me one at a time, and so that I also wasn't reliant on memory - a request or a step in the project plan or an enquiry were managed by working with time management and information software systems, and enabling all parties to have access to tools and information to help themselves. Things could then come at me one at a time, and be dealt with immediately through reference to stored materials, and the overall plan was already as minimalist as possible, and logically step-based, with pre-set reminders for everything.

As with you, I cannot ignore "voices". Similar to your TV example (which I also share), I cannot abide things like pubs - when the music's pumping, and well-lubricated conversations are bouncing all around you (along with the beer that seems to inevitably gets spilt on me), I cannot hold a conversation with a single person talking/shouting directly into my ear. I just tell people I have "dyslexic hearing" (apologies to anyone whom might be offended by the insensitivity of this phrase - it's just an attempt to obtain an analogy that explains how for me the spoken word blends and mixes up with all others around it, as, I believe, dyslexia is sometimes described).

My SO can get totally lost in a book, and suddenly come back to Earth with a startled grunt. "Omigosh! I'm sorry!" "You were reading. I'm used to it. Not a problem..."

Yeah, I get that. I barely hear a thing once I'm in a book, and I'm frequently the recipient of my name being shouted by The Loved One, to get my attention.

I've read "Zen", though not re-read.

I'm still not sure I "get it", but I am satisfied, after three readings over a few years, that I've "got" as much as I can from it. I found it an interesting book, and the first to properly put me in the mind of a completely alien (to me) way of thinking. I was, again, young when I first read it. I was probably about 25-30 when I last read it.

Likewise "Fear and Loathing". Hunter was a strange dude.

Yes, he was a "pro'".

I recall a letter of comment to Rolling Stone back when on the order of "Dear Hunter Thompson: We think you are a great writer. But if you ever came to our town, we'd lock you in the closet and run like crazy f*****s!"

I recall, in relation to a discussion about poets, someone talking about Hunter S. Thompson as a poet, and it had never occurred to me that he was otherwise until someone asked what poetry he had written. I didn't know of any. I guess I was influence by paragraphs like the opening of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, which always felt like poetry to me. Anyway, I did end up finding at least one piece:

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?...0a%20Mad%20Dog

I think I understand just how they felt.

With my "sexual" preferences known, it is often inevitable that some people consider my attraction to the work of a male like, let's say, the music of Robbie Williams (not all of it - it's his self-referential self-deprecating satire of "pop" that often pleases me), to be indicative of a (assumed sexual) attraction to the person. This tends to apply to actors, musicians...even writers if they're in the public eye. This is rarely a valid inference, as I am generally as overt at presenting my desire for males whose form I do admire (Mmm, Laurence Fishburne) as any male is about the object of their physical desire.

Hunter S. Thompson scares (scared) the hell out of me too. Even putting aside my inherent shyness, I never had any desire to see him or meet him.

However, like with those whose work I might admire (Clive James is another), I definitely have parts of me that wish they could be him, at least those parts that relate to the writing aspect of him.

Re-reading Mr Thompson is like a shot of hallucinogenic to the creative centres of my brain, and that's sometimes a good thing (for me, if not for those subject to the results ).

(I think I included that last sentence to justify an argument of thread-topicality in the rest of the guff I just wrote ).

Cheers,
Marc (Is the going getting weird yet?)

[izmi]

I never re-read. I am the same as you, Over; once I understand the relationships, plots and motives of a story completely, I rarely feel the need to reaquaint myself with them. I don't generally forget the story of a book, though the finer details do become blurred. I would much rather find a new book to disect, than re-disect and old novel.

There are a few exceptions though - Anything by Shakespeare and the Classicists (English and Greek). The reason for this is I have a degree in English and classics (and religious studies), and propose to teach those two subjects, so over the course of my degree, I often re-read particular books for essays, and I will re-read them for the sake of my future students.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Over

One thing I noticed is that many people here read very fast. Could that also be related to why you must re-read to fully assimilate a book or refresh your memories? Or is it that I'm just a very slow reader?

I'm a relatively fast reader, but I don't think that's the only reason I re-read. The second time through, I can note the way the author has set up things I already know about from the first read. I appreciate more of the craft on later re-reads.

Plus, as Dennis says, sometimes I just want that "comfortable old shoe" feeling.

[Over]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

Neverness is a great classic. The Broken God series ending with War in Heaven is very good but does not compare - I found the main character which is the son by his half-sister of the one in Neverness completely unrealistic. Still a worthwhile read and War in Heaven is one of the saddest sf books I've read though the ending is uplifting to some degree.

For me the most read book is most likely Use of Weapons by IM Banks which is my top standalone sff book ever and I've read maybe 15, maybe 20 times in 15 years or so. For sf series Night's Dawn is top of the finished ones and HH top of the continuing ones and I've reread the 3500+pages - if you include short stories and encyclopedia - of Night's Dawn several times, and the HH novels many times each - hard to count but I estimate On Basilisk Station 10+ times, At all Costs 10+ times since these are still my top two.

Right now the only standalone that may top UoW in say 15 years is Anathem which I've already read 5 times but it's too early to tell.

Of non sff some books I've read many times including recently are the Dumas cycles of the Revolution, Louis XIII-XIV, Renaissance,and Empire in that order of preferemce- first volumes are Joseph Balsamo, Three Musketeers, Queen Margot, Whites and Blues respectively

Wow, impressive record. Do you read as an hobby or you're one of the lucky ones who are paid to read? I know you write articles/reviews for fantasybookcritic.com.

I'm a little bit jealous. :P I mean, Anathem isn't even 1 month old and you've already read it 5 times? And it's not a small book! (BTW, I just bought it today )

Maybe it's a matter of time, not speed of reading, as montsnmags said.