How pleb am I for (almost) never rereading books?

If a book had any ideas worth keeping you would've gotten them in the first pass.

So you're in the clear imhotbqh.

less pleb than people who's brains are numb enough to not revolt to havint to digest the same informations twice. it's the same people that need to learn the shit their lector discussed in class at home a second time

>>9184274
>Incidentally, I use the word reader very loosely. Curiously enough, one cannot read a book: one can only reread it. A good reader, a major reader, an active and creative reader is a rereader. And I shall tell you why. When we read a book for the first time the very process of laboriously moving our eyes from left to right, line after line, page after page, this complicated physical work upon the book, the very process of learning in terms of space and time what the book is about, this stands between us and artistic appreciation. When we look at a painting we do not have to move our eyes in a special way even if, as in a book, the picture contains elements of depth and development. The element of time does not really enter in a first contact with a painting. In reading a book, we must have time to acquaint ourselves with it. We have no physical organ (as we have the eye in regard to a painting) that takes in the whole picture and then can enjoy its details. But at a second, or third, or fourth reading we do, in a sense, behave towards a book as we do towards a painting. However, let us not confuse the physical eye, that monstrous masterpiece of evolution, with the mind, an even more monstrous achievement. A book, no matter what it is—a work of fiction or a work of science (the boundary line between the two is not as clear as is generally believed)—a book of fiction appeals first of all to the mind. The mind, the brain, the top of the tingling spine, is, or should be, the only instrument used upon a book.
>~Nobokov

>>9184302
that's only true if you read like a first grader and have to vocalize every word in your brain

>pleb

>>9184283
Almost had me there.

>>9184274

i've read the same book up to four times in a row if i liked it. when i was very young, i re-read 'where the red fern grows' 12 times in a row, and each time, i spent hours weeping and wailing when the tragic ending came. it never got easier. i just kept doing it. my mother took the book away.

>>9184283

you're fucking retarded if the value of art is for you to merely have seen it, rather than in the seeing of it itself.

>>9184274
There was a quotation I found in one of Amos Oz's books which went along the lines of: 'if a book is not good enough to be read a second time, it ought not to have been read a first.'

>>9184360
i guess there are just different kinds of people. i can't stand reading something twice. or rewatching a movie. my brain protests. it demands new fuel or nothing at all.

but i'm also not someone that gives mich value to continuity, stability and predictable procesure. and i know there are people who value those things highly. i suspect those are also the ones that find calm and joy in rereading. not that ones i better than the other. just different

>>9184392

the pursuit of constant novelty and perpetual stimulation? you should really look into kaleidoscopes.

>>9184321
>look ma i'm an epic trolle
Here's a (You) to stave off your suicide.

>>9184274
If you don't want to read it again, don't. If you think you might want to, try reading it again for a while and see where it leads.

>>9184302
Interesting. Bloom is also big on re-reading.

>>9184427
Borges too. OP BTFO.