Books you have to re-read?

[de_duck]

I've just finished Kafka on the Shore which i'm reckoning a few people here have probably also read. I thought it was alright with some lovely bits but overall it didn't move me greatly.
However on the wiki page for the book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafka_on_the_Shore) it quotes the author Murakami saying that you have to read the novel several times to understand it properly.
This sounds like cobblers to me, I consider myself at least averagelly intelligent (if a terrible speller) and I can't think of any books that i've had to re-read before I understand them but maybe thats just me and my choice of reading?

[Nomad]

spot the dog* when i was a young'un, had a bit of trouble with the spelling, syntax and grammar at first

actually, read,'pride and prejudice and zombies' out of curiosity the other month, that involved re-reading the odd page due to wtf moments due to the olde worlde prose

*book may not have been the actual book but can't remember it now

[Lungboy]

American Psycho i felt i didn't really "get" until 3 or 4 reads.

[Q-Target]

So did he actually kill all those people or was he just a braincase?

[Heartwork]

I really liked The Bridge by Iain Banks on my first read of it, but I never picked up on a huge amount of metaphorical happenings in it until I reread it later.

[Beef~]

No, the book is meaningless if he did. The clues are in the opening and last words of the book.

Just had a look through the books I own and there's four I've read more than once; a biography of Einstein, Philosophy Made Simple, A Brief History of Time by Hawking, and Hunter S Thompson's Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail. I read each of them again mainly because I didn't fully understand what they on about the first time round.

But I suspect that's not what you're alluding to, as re-reading a fictional book is quite different to factual misunderstandings. I can certainly see what Murakami is getting at. There are a few books I don't suppose I will fully understand until I grow older. I recently read Everyman by Roth which speaks about the degradation of growing old. Aspects of which, in particular the brutally honest parts, I just won't fully appreciate.

[DizMatt]

don't read books more then once recently.
don't read enough...but loved to read Good Omens a few times, in my Pratchett avid fan phase.

[Jamey]

Don't think I've read anything twice but I had to "go slow" on more than a few pages of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, especially when he got deep into the philosophy stuff. Was quite rewarding though. Didn't realise just how much science was founded on philosophy until I read that.

Plus it's made me maintain my (push)bike better.

[Lungboy]

Originally Posted by Beef~

No, the book is meaningless if he did.

How so? There is no way to tell, just from the book, whether he did or didn't commit the murders. I decided the book makes more sense and is more damning in its critique of Bateman's society if he DID commit the murders.

[Karmic]

I'm rereading Armed Madhouse at the mo

[Beef~]

That was how I understood it. It's not actually stated in the book. Seems to me that if Bateman just murdered for no discernible reason, other than it was his predilection, then there seems to be no purpose to the book. It's like watching Hostel or some other piece of torture porn. Sadistic for the sake of it.

The book begins with the following quote from Notes from Underground:

"Both the author of these Notes and the Notes themselves are, of course, fictional. Nevertheless, such persons as the composer of these Notes not only exist in our society, but indeed must exist, considering the circumstances under which our society has generally been formed. I have wished to bring before the public, somewhat more distinctly than usual, one of the characters of our recent past. He represents a generation that is still living out its days among us. In the fragment entitled "Underground" this personage describes himself and his views and attempts, as it were, to clarify the reasons why he appeared and was bound to appear in our midst. The subsequent fragment will consist of the actual "notes," concerning certain events in his life."

Bateman is a product of his environment and the society in which he inhabits. The prison, hell, nightmare he lives in is his mind. Unable to endure the superficial and materialistic world, which provides no lasting satisfaction or identity to his being he resorts to hedonism - be that through sex, violence or drugs to make him feel alive.

The frequent and, as you will have read, exhausting descriptions about the minutae of Whitney Houston's latest cd or how sartorially to wear a waistcoat are the things that feed his madness. They are of course irrelevancies to what most people would understand to mean as living but they form a considerable amount (in fact nearly all) of the discussion between Bateman and his friends. Trapped in this ridiculous position of having, materially, everything but nothing of what is important, Bateman's psyche resorts to fantasy and delusion as a coping mechanism.

Combined with his job as a privileged investment banker making nothing, producing nothing tangible he is further alienated from society (in terms of his lifestyle) but finds no sanctuary in his productive faculties - unable to express himself or his identity in any tangible form. Instead relying on etiquette to differentiate himself from everyone else. Superficial elements that form no solid foundation to define a self-identity and contributes to the deterioration in his mental health.

Anyway, that's probably enough rambling. The key point is that Bateman (as a character) is suppose to be an everyman. His tragedy and torment is the delusional and psychic mental prison he is forced into inhabiting because of the vacuity of modern society; that provides no release from the greed and consumerism that plagues his existence. That was my reading of it anyway. Perhaps if you've read Notes from Underground you might share a similar view. The two books share many similarities.

[Harry Palmer]

I don't read many factual (or at least fact based) books by choice, but I have read The Dambusters by Paul Brickhill several times, and I can see me reading Vulcan 607 at least 1 more time.

One book I feel I want to read again is Catch 22 by Joseph Heller as I think I may get more out of it now than when I originally read it.

[Heartwork]

I don't feel like I got anything more out of catch-22 on a second reading - in fact I didn't enjoy it anywhere near as much, since I remembered it all pretty well.

[Harry Palmer]

you may be right, I've just been thinking about it and I can remember quite a lot considering I read it in 1984 :/ maybe I'll just stick with the memory of it since I have so many ebooks to read now (see ebook thread for more detail...)

[The Big Kahuna]

Read Catch-22 probably half a dozen times and get more from it each time.

Same with The world according to Garp, which I've also read about 6 times.

Every couple of years I read Raymond Feists books from beginning to end (I read FAST!)

Tend to read Without Remorse by Tom Clancy when I need some brain out material if I know I'm going to be waiting 3 hours for my car to be serviced (it's one of those "yeah, get in there my son! Fuck them drug dealers up GOOD!" books).

I also read the Elvis Cole novels by Robert Crais in a more or less constant cycle.

If I get in the mood for reading I can quite easily average two thick books every three days, especially on holiday. I think I read 9 in 2 weeks in Sri Lanka.

I read War and Peace in 30 minutes once.

It's about Russia *


























* Thanks go out to Woody Allen for that one

[Nomad]

Originally Posted by Jamey

...Didn't realise just how much science was founded on philosophy until I read that.

do tell as imo:
science = is, philosophy = hmm, i can hmm about is but not change it, what is will always be is, surely is is and hmm comes about later to understand it?

world always round, early thinkers thought it was flat, didn't make it so, they were wrong no matter how much they preached and burnt unbelievers. eventually after a review on facts they had a pr moment and now think it's not flat.

not up for an argument or having a dig jamey in anyway, just curious as to how the book led to that thought but not curious enough to buy it mind

[Jamey]

Oh God, well... I can't remember enough of the nitty gritty to really get a point across... Would probably need to re-read it (bringing the thread full-circle ) but I'd recommend it. Really good book even if you don't pay attention to the science stuff.

[Nomad]

no worries bud, it'll wait until morning. if not and i notice it in smiths i may pick it up sometime, i think i attempted it once before at a young age and didn't get passed page 5 so i'll have another good.

diz was spot on with good omens, a definite fun re-readable book when in Tezza P mode, not a book that has to be re-read due to confusion. 'thursdays by appointment'