What are you reading?

[kamsky]

Once is not enough?

Ha, apparently not. To be sure, it's only the second time I'll have read it, and re-reading is generally not common (enough?) practice.

[Faust]

Sorry, I was just being snide - I just don't think it's a book worth re-reading.

[trentk]

Why not? Any book where "strange shapes of the unwarped primal world glide to and fro before [a character's] passive eyes" is a book worth rereading in my opinion. I challenge anyone who disagrees to read the chapter on white* ( http://americanliterature.com/author...s-of-the-whale ) look at some white fashion collections/looks/garments (the first look in gareth pugh's most recent collection comes to mind) and tell me that moby dick did not greatly enrich their perception.

*yes I'm aware that there is a backwards mid 19th century line about white men having ideal mastership over dusky tribes in this chapter. one disgusting line does not ruin a whole chapter.

[bukka]

Sorry, I was just being snide - I just don't think it's a book worth re-reading.

At first I read that "a book is not worth re-reading". I was like, "huh, how can Faust say something so wrong"

[Faust]

I don't know, I think Moby Dick is overrated. Obviously, it's not meritless, I just would not allocate my time and mental resources to rereading it.

[kamsky]

Sorry, I was just being snide - I just don't think it's a book worth re-reading.

Why not? Any book where "strange shapes of the unwarped primal world glide to and fro before [a character's] passive eyes" is a book worth rereading in my opinion.

I don't know, I think Moby Dick is overrated. Obviously, it's not meritless, I just would not allocate my time and mental resources to rereading it.

No need to apologize; somewhat difficult to gauge tone in this medium, but did not think your original post was out of line in any way. Without intending to sound conflictive, I'll say that it's possible that our literary proclivities diverge in some significant ways (from what I can gather from your posts -- so an incompletely formed idea. To be clear, not to say that my literary tastes are superior to those of anyone else's).

Don't mean to hijack this thread but I'm digressing -- as I've said previously (phrased differently), I think the thread benefits from our thinking of it as "What and why are you reading?" as opposed to simply listing the titles we're engaged in.

Anyway, I see both your points. Generally speaking, since the decline of incunabula, the advent of the printing press and the subsequent, increasing ability to own books by the general populace, the tendency has been to read exhaustively -- i.e. to familiarize oneself with as many books as possible. (Prior to the printing press, most people did not own any books at all, the wealthy might have had a couple, and few owned more than a handful; those who did were usually institutions, such as churches, universities, etc.) Point is, at present, having access to almost any book that has ever been written, it's not unreasonable to ask oneself why reread anything instead of reading something else for the first time.

Don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I've been thinking about why one might choose to "allocate [...] time and mental resources" to rereading. It's hard (for me) to argue that rereading Moby-Dick is better than reading, say, anything by Virginia Woolf, Shakespeare's Sonnets, Thayer's Life of Beethoven or something regarding the colonial history of Brazil (to name a random few of the infinite things I'd like to be less unfamiliar with.)

It's not yet/presently clear to me that the aesthetic, philosophical or simply entertaining qualities I originally found in Moby-Dick will be equal, lesser or greater now. So the longwinded preamble I just wrote is more or less all to banally say that though the text has clearly not changed, everything else has, and I think rereading will prove valuable in sort of measuring how my capacity to receive it has evolved.

Thoughts, comments, reactions are welcome and encouraged as always. I try to remain aware of the fact that I have pretty big blindspots, it's oftentimes helpful to locate them (at least sooner rather than later) with the help of others.

[Faust]

Of course you are right. It used to be if you read 10 books you were well educated, then 100, and now what, a thousand? But it's exactly why I'd put Moby Dick low on the totem pole.

I think rereading is fantastic and I've reread some of my favorites 5-6 times. But those are the books that blow your mind.

[Czx]

Finished Clavells Shogun a few days ago. Quite an enjoyable read really and the insights into the cultural aspects of Japan are quite valuable.

Now reading My First Summer In Sierra by John Muir and I'm really enjoying it. It's exactly what I was looking for as of late and it is really beautiful at times and I can relate to his fascination of nature. Propably going to read something else by him soon after I'm done with this one.

Recommendations of traveling/nature books will be appreciated, by the way.

[bukka]

Finished Clavells Shogun a few days ago. Quite an enjoyable read really and the insights into the cultural aspects of Japan are quite valuable.

Now reading My First Summer In Sierra by John Muir and I'm really enjoying it. It's exactly what I was looking for as of late and it is really beautiful at times and I can relate to his fascination of nature. Propably going to read something else by him soon after I'm done with this one.

Recommendations of traveling/nature books will be appreciated, by the way.

A Barbarian in Asia by Henri Michaux. Absolute classic. Epitome of traveling book in french literature.

[Czx]

Thank you, will definitely check it out. From the short summary on goodreads it seems to be up my alley.

Btw. I'm so happy - won a beautiful leather bound Easton Press reprint of Thoreau's Walden for less than 10$. And it's in absolutely perfect condition, like it was never touched. I love auctions at times.

[bukka]

Thank you, will definitely check it out. From the short summary on goodreads it seems to be up my alley.

Btw. I'm so happy - won a beautiful leather bound Easton Press reprint of Thoreau's Walden for less than 10$. And it's in absolutely perfect condition, like it was never touched. I love auctions at times.

Ahhh book auctions That's the only stuff that makes me totally irrational, kind of like sz people with clothes. I used to go to Hôtel Drouot in Paris when there was literary auctions, I try to avoid it now, too much temptation...

[Verdandi]

I am reading "Der Briefwechsel" (correspondence) between Thomas Bernhard and Siegfried Unseld, the man who published him for more than 25 years. It's a highly entertaining and often even hilarious read. Recommended to everyone who is interested in Bernhard and can read German as I don't think a translation exists.
And some Sallust, because I like to be reminded of how much my Latin has deteriorated.

[MJRH]

czx: i hear ya, picked up an easton volume of rabelais for $8 this past summer. swoon!

i've just finished from dawn to decadence, by jacques barzun, and it is a marvel. the repeat refrain is, "the popular perspective on this issue is bullshit, you're not seeing the whole picture, life is so much more complicated, here are some contradictory facts that return what's become cliche to a complex and vital system of thought." corrected my (unthinking) bias on a number of issues; among others, he rehabilitates rousseau, and goes into an interesting history of shakespeare, who was not always universally loved. he writes with a droll wit that adds a lively spark to whatever he treats. here's an excerpt from an essay called "myths for materialists," written from the perspective of a futuristic historian trying to understand american culture:

The Anglo-Americans of the twentieth century complained that they had no myths. ... Modern investigation, however, points to the familiar truth that the people of that restless culture were calling for something that they already had. Myth so pervaded their lives that they could not see it for what it was. ...

... What strikes the observer at once is the overwhelming emphasis on womanhood—presumably as the inexhaustible fount of human life—and on the situation of sexual approach as the characteristic moment in that life. If one did not know the ways of myth-makers, their habit of juxtaposing incompatibles for the sake of a higher truth, one would suppose that the Anglo-Americans were unable to do anything without a member of the opposite sex in a state of provocative or compliant amorousness. In their iconography, seductiveness and sheeps' eyes invariably accompany eating, working, and driving, securing food, clothing, and shelter, listening to music or averting constipation.

The motive is clear enough: the artificial search for life through objects can only be kept at high pitch by associating the objects themselves with the strongest of desires. Advertising maxims were explicit: Look sweeter in a sweater," "Use the soap with sex appeal," etc.

that's from 1946, but you wouldn't know it, wouldja?

[Faust]

I did not know Rousseau was in need of rehabilitation.

[MJRH]

^d'you mean you don't know that lots of people dismiss rousseau without ever having read him—like i did, and will now consciously refrain from doing until i've given his work a fair chance?

or, d'you mean you've already read a full book or two of his, and think that he doesn't deserve the second chance that mr. barzun says he does? i am genuinely curious, since i'm guilty of buying into the groupthink against rousseau, without ever having read more than a line or two of his.