>>7418160
Pseudo-intellectual who thought his ideas were more important than they were.

I read my favorite books more than once, but sometimes I don't.

>not living an average of sixty or so years
>not utilizing the sheer amount of free time that will be at your disposal to reread the things you enjoy

I'll start rereading old favourites when I hit 30.

>>7418160
He was right.

I don't understand the desire to read books more than once. Maybe I'll do something like >>7418182 but the concept is alien to me today.

>>7418195
Try it. (if there's something worthwhile in what you were having a few years ago, of course - maybe you just haven't read anything that warrants a second serving)

He's right, you can come to a far better understanding and appreciation of a book by re-reading it.

You really only read a book once.

Music gets better when you listen to it more than one time. Same goes with books. If it's about enjoyment however.

>>7418346
Only if you read airport novels.

>>7418160
I don't know, I'm reading War and Peace for the second time right now and it feels worth.

I was just thinking something like this the other night. I came out of a movie and thought "that was okay but I'll probably not watch it again" and then I realized the finality of not ever watching that movie again. I will be dead without ever revisiting that movie. well shucks, even stuff I don't like I want to revisit often when I think of it that way.

anyways that's sort of off topic. but I reread often. to think of liking a book and dying, being completely wiped out of existence before ever rereading it seems insane to me. to close a good book and close it forever.

File: 6234522435.jpg (94 KB, 719x863) Image search: [Google]

94 KB, 719x863

>not reading Stranger annually

>>7418446
Because there are other fucking movies and books to watch/read. Stop it you fool.

>>7418195
a book written by some authors works 2 ways

first from front to back

then all at once

there is a lot you will appreciate on 2nd reading that is quite literally impossible pick up on the first

Some people just suck ass at philosophy/abstract thinking.

C.S. Lewis is one of those people. Every nonfiction piece he wrote is demonstrably garbage.

>not reading Ulysses at least three times

>>7418346
Deep ...?

>>7418468
Do you read it in French?

>>7418481
What's with the nerds taking shots at Lewis lately? Always the same shit too.

>>7418478
You have the time to revisit. Don't make excuses.

>>7418468
>Stranger
Worst Camus book.
Not surprised that it is popular here. /lit/ likes easy books that makes look smart.

>>7418195

Have you ever watched a movie or documentary more than once?

Rereading a book is the best thing ever. Since you already anticipate the plot, you start seeing more things in the text. Not rereading is stupid.

>>7418346
this 2bh

>>7418195

Because you know the story better, you'll have a better understanding of what it's about on a deeper level, and, because it's at a later point in your life, you'll probably have a more mature perspective on it and, if you're more well read, will probably pick up on references to other books and other forms of intertextuality.

Some people are inclined to obsessively re-experience the things they love... tv especially. With my books, I think how many books I have yet to read, so I can easily move on to something new. Sure there's a few things I've read more than once, but not much.

You're wasting your time if you don't reread most great novels and are basically pseudo-intellectual trash that wants to pretend to like literature without putting in any effort into understanding it.

That's just his way of saying that if you reread a book you'll enjoy it even more.

It sounds like an off the cuff remark anyway.