runs

[Tim Strzechowski]

From: "Terrance" <lycidas2 at earthlink.net>
>
> "Burns, Erik" wrote:
> >
> > Paul wrote (quoting VN);
> >
> > >"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.
> >
> > thanks - that IS the cite i was thinking of when i wrote "all reading is
> > rereading." I knew he'd writ *something* like that.
> >
> > much obliged.
> >
> > etb
>
> N never says anything like "all reading is rereading." In fact, the
> point of his statement about rereading a book is nearly the opposite.
> What he is talking about is good reading and good writing. A good reader
> of good literature rereads.

I can't speak for Eric, but I don't believe his contention is that ALL
reading is rereading.  He was approximating a Nabokov quotation from memory,
and Paul gave him the *actual* quote, and Eric then said that that was the
quote he was originally thinking of (qualified by the "*something* like
that").

>
> Why am I being a stickler about this? Because the claim that **ALL*
> reading is rereading implies that one can not read a book without
> rereading it. This is an absurd claim. Even the claim that one has not
> REALLY read _Bleak House_ until or unless one has reread it is
> ridiculous. N is giving advise. Good advice.

Yes, and N's making a distinction between a first-time-through read of text,
wherein we are involved in "the very process of laboriously moving our eyes
from left to right" and learning the basics of "what the book is about," and
a second-time-through read of the text, at which time the reader, who now
knows the basics of plot, character, etc., can now engage in "artistic
appreciation" of the text.  Remember: "a good reader, a major reader, an
active and creative reader is a rereader."  All reading is rereading?  I
picture Dennis Hopper in mannequin garb in Cambodia, to Martin Sheen: "He
said 'All *reading* is rereading' . . . and he *meant* it."

I seem to recall a veteran lister a few years back advising a newbie on how
best to approach the use of Weisenburger's GR Companion.  The vet said to
read GR at least twice, solo, before beginning to use the Companion.  I'm
not sure that that is the best advice, but I do think it sort of illustrates
the Nabokovian notion of learning the basics in a first read, then rereading
(or, in this case, using supplementary material) to gain a better
appreciation.

Tim