• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Re-readers - what do you re-read and why

Rinky said:
Another one here, just finished it again last week.

I keep reading quite many books again and again: LOTR, the Discworld series (not all of them, though), some books of Umberto Eco, Agatha Christie (even if I remember who the killer is :)), Poe, Adams etc. Usually I like to re-read 'lighter' books - if you can call Eco light...
Click to expand...

And another - first time a paperback w/C.Lee (lousy pic) on cover in early 60s and twice since. (that's re: Dracula)
 
Mr Clingford said:
If you find Eco light :jaw-dropp.What qualifies as heavy reading :D ?
Click to expand...

No need to dislocate your jaw :D, I don't find it light at all. That's probably why I have to read his books again and again - can't usually make sense of them the first time.
 
Rinky said:
Another one here, just finished it again last week.

I keep reading quite many books again and again: LOTR, the Discworld series (not all of them, though), some books of Umberto Eco, Agatha Christie (even if I remember who the killer is :)), Poe, Adams etc. Usually I like to re-read 'lighter' books - if you can call Eco light...
Click to expand...
I tend to re-read Foucault's Pendulum and The Name Of The Rose every 5 years or so. I'm probably due to give The Island of the Day before its first re-read.
 
I have thought that I would give Foucault's Pendulum a go when I feel some confidence that my brain isn't complete mush.
 
The one I'm reading now, The Ghost Map, is going to deserve a re-read. It's about the 1853(? - my worsening memory is another reason for a re-read) London cholera epidemic, the emergence of epidemiology, and the beginning of the end for the miasmatic theory of contagion. It's an object lesson in the need for skepticism and the scientific method on a very practical, life-or-death level. You will also, however, very graphically learn all about what cholera is and how it works, from the level of the city map through the individual physical symptoms, to the view through the microscope.

Factoid: Cholera was enabled to grow from pestilence to plague by the onset of modern sanitation, such as the citywide installation of sewers, which allowed city dwellers to stop storing their feces in their own cellars. It's true!
 
I often re-read earlier books in a series when I get the latest book.

I also re-read many books I read when I was much younger to get a more mature opinion of them.

And for some strange reason, I love reading "The Deathworld Trilogy" by Harry Harrison. I've probably read it 6 or 8 times.
 
Beady said:
The one I'm reading now, The Ghost Map, is going to deserve a re-read. It's about the 1853(? - my worsening memory is another reason for a re-read) London cholera epidemic, the emergence of epidemiology, and the beginning of the end for the miasmatic theory of contagion. It's an object lesson in the need for skepticism and the scientific method on a very practical, life-or-death level. You will also, however, very graphically learn all about what cholera is and how it works, from the level of the city map through the individual physical symptoms, to the view through the microscope.

Factoid: Cholera was enabled to grow from pestilence to plague by the onset of modern sanitation, such as the citywide installation of sewers, which allowed city dwellers to stop storing their feces in their own cellars. It's true!
Click to expand...
but without a full understanding of how these systems needed to be set up to prevent collection and passage of material into sanitary areas.
 
What I re-read

A lot of books. Mostly baseball, or stuff related to my history work.

I often find myself going back to The Caine Mutiny and 1984. Both for the lunatic psychology, I guess.

I tell people that if I had read the latter book while in high school, my big term paper would have been: "1984: Blueprint for the Glorious Future," and I would have argued the cause of creating a state like Oceania, and shown the similarities between it and the school. My final point would have been to make our principal as "Big Brother" and me as "Emmanuel Goldstein." :eek:

I was a very troubled teenager. :p
 
I've read LOTR several times now. Same for Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I have all four books conveniently bound together, but I always enjoy the first one best.

Other than that, I like traveloques and have re-read Bill Bryson's A Walk in the Woods, and In a Sunburned Country.

Krakauer's Into the Wild and Into Thin Air as well as Boukriev's response The Climb.

The Hot Zone
Helter Skelter
Fatal Vision
The Once and Future King
The Shining
The Dean Koontz book about the intelligent dog. Watchers?
David Sedaris' Holidays on Ice
I'll probably end up having to buy another copy of Letham's As She Climbed Across the Table, so I can re-read it.
Some of Donald Westlake's Dortmunder books
 
MetalSeagull said:
Krakauer's Into the Wild and Into Thin Air as well as Boukriev's response The Climb.
Click to expand...

I liked Into The Wild but I thought Krakauer's version of the incident on Everest in Into Thin Air was completely made up. It didn't follow any of the evidence or witness accounts. He blamed Boukriev for all the deaths and yet Boukriev was one of only a few people out helping. All his charges got down the mountain, it was Rob Hall's group that lost all the people. Krakauer laid in his tent and did nothing although he claimed to be one of the most experienced on the mountain.

Krakauer was told when he wrote the original article for Outside Magazine that his facts were wrong but he did not correct them. He then wrote a book using the exact same, false information.

The facts were corroborated by several other groups on Everest at the time including the IMAX team of David Breashears and Ed Viesturs as well as the Swedish soloist who biked from Sweden to Everest and climbed it without help, only failing to summit because of the incident.

I haven't been able to read anything by Krakauer since because I never know how much he is embellishing a story to make himself look good.
 
Admiral said:
Most great books get better every time you read them- they have little treasures hidden in them that reward multiple readings.

If anyone's ever read the graphic novel "Watchmen," you'll know what I meant- it's crafted so that there are hints to the overall plot scattered throughout the book. Nearly every panel has hidden meanings that only make sense the third or fourth time you read it.
Click to expand...

I just reread this a few months ago, the first time since it first came out. I remembered a few things, but did catch the foreshadowing this time around. That would make an awesome movie!
 
qayak said:
I liked Into The Wild but I thought Krakauer's version of the incident on Everest in Into Thin Air was completely made up. It didn't follow any of the evidence or witness accounts. He blamed Boukriev for all the deaths and yet Boukriev was one of only a few people out helping. All his charges got down the mountain, it was Rob Hall's group that lost all the people. Krakauer laid in his tent and did nothing although he claimed to be one of the most experienced on the mountain.
Click to expand...



It is certainly noticable during reading that Krakauer did nothing to find the missing team members, and even worse, left the all-but-dead Beck Weathers alone in a tent which subsequently blew down or blew open and exposed him yet again to the blizzard conditions. Also he shrugged off any responsiblilty when one of the guides was insisting full O2 containers were empty, proceeding down without any action.

He also mistook one person for another and caused the wrong information to be relayed to their families. Plus, I also found the "learned helplessness" bit very lame.

I don't think he vilified Boukriev, but also didn't give him enough credit. I felt that he implicated Hall and Fischer more for not turning the teams around at the agreed-upon time. He also blamed the spotty radio contact between team members.




qayak said:
I haven't been able to read anything by Krakauer since because I never know how much he is embellishing a story to make himself look good.
Click to expand...

I haven't either, just those two. Into the Wild seemed like a compassionate look at the man involved, as much mystery as adventure. It's more the subject than the author for me.


I've read a half dozen or so accounts of Everest '96. But Into Thin Air and The Climb are the only ones compelling enough that I wanted to re-read them.
 
I've re-read (almost) everything Vonnegut many times. Of course, he's my favorite author. He's any easy read with a ton of laughs and thought provoking. It's like watching a good movie again.

I've re-read everything Tolkein many times. The world he created for Hobbit/LOTR/Silmarillion is so complex there is always more to find. Unlike some, I like all his descriptions of trees and glens and bushes and hills and what people are wearing and their hair and so on. There is always a new level to pick up on that fits into the larger story. I liked the movies alright, but it seemed like the Cliffs Notes version of the story. Even his shorter stories have that re-readability quality. Smith of Wootton Major and Farmer Giles of Ham have that bed-time story-telling quality where you want to hear it again and again. Tolkein even brings up that quality with the songs and telling us about young hobbits wanting to hear the story again about the mysterious Mr. Baggins.

Books I DON'T re-read are ones where the plot is everything or where the medium is the message. If the whole book is just "what happens next", then it's good for an airplane trip, but when you're done, you're done: no re-read. If the whole book is just a socio-political message or is a specific symbolism of the human condition, then you get the point or the symbolism, and you're done: no re-read.

Re-reads are for books that take you on an adventure. Where you end up isn't important. Then you can take the adventure again. Which would maybe explain at least one person's desire to re-read a Bill Bryson book! Less than once of that guy's stuff is enough for me. I think I'll re-read A Confederacy of Dunces instead! :D
 
Last edited:
I re-read over school breaks because I like the comfort of not soaking up every little thing. I have a penchant for keeping library books past their due date, and I think the librarians secretly hate me because of it (I'm pretty neurotic and self-important).

Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner: it's like air to me.

Sex in America, Michael, et. al.

Works by Stephen King, Anne Rice, and Dave Barry as well.
 
If were on a desert island I would bring that book worst case scenario, you never know when you have to give yourself a tonsillectomy! Then I pack "Flower for Algernon" for entertainment. "Papillion" incase I need an idea for how to get off the island. The Mario Puzo collection. My childhood Garfield Comic Strip Collection. And when I become bored and can no longer stand life alone I'll have "The Scarlett Letter" I hated that book! If I had to read it again I will kill myself!
 
I am not a big re-reader, I may go over bits but I hardly ever re-read an entire book.
 
I'm with supercorgi. I don't re-read a lot, but when I do, it's to get certain emotions back. Usually they are humorous or whimsical books for when I need a mood lift. PG Wodehouse, Vonnegut, Tom Robbins, etc. Another book I regularly re-read is Gabriel Garcia Marquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude. That one just takes me to a place I like being in, so I reread it every few years just to go visit again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom