Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/26813
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Wit can sure help. I've always enjoyed re-reading witty things like Candide, Diderot's Jacques the Fatalist, Kafka's Trial and Dorian Gray.

Let me push back at the question a bit. I don't think a novel needs to be re-readable but it should raise enough questions that you should want to explore the story more deeply another time.

But that is just writing a rich story with lots of beautiful phrases and details. As an adult I may not catch every detail the first time around, but two or three years later, I will have forgotten most of the details -- it's almost like reading it for the first time.

The great thing about reading a book you have already read is that you know it's going to be good.

When you read later, you don't have as much suspense, but you are in a perfect position to enjoy the language and narrative asides. Even when I am paying attention during the first read, I miss a lot of stuff, so a second read can make up for my initial sloppy reading.

As an essayist and sometimes critic, I sometimes re-read things to write about them. But then again, I choose to write about literary works after deciding that it's good.

There have been times I have approached works later on and realized that my maturity and life experiences have changed the way I viewed the work and what viewpoints I identify with. When I grew up, I loved the TV show "All in the Family" and thought Archie Bunker was such a ridiculous figure. Now that I am in my 50s, I find a lot of Archie's attitudes are not so ridiculous (even if he words them poorly).

Maybe it would help to bake into the story different points of view.(this could be an argument for 3rd person omniscient).

Original score: 0