[eyelidlessness]

I treat good books, non-fiction and fiction alike, as something between reference material and a reliable if distant friend. I’m familiar with what the author of this article describes, absorbing only a fraction of what a book conveys. I’m also not nearly as well read as many people I know, but I do return to books I’ve valued, sometimes many times over. And I absorb more, sometimes vastly more from subsequent reads.

The book may or may not be a great format for linear acquisition of knowledge or consumption of information. Neither is the traditional “album” necessarily the best format for taking in a musician’s work. Coming back to it, though, absorbing it again, can give shape to what you didn’t notice before. The familiar parts can carry the less familiar to your attention.

As a fiction example, I’ve read the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series at least seven or eight times and each time expands my appreciation for its detail. Some re-readings have left me wondering how I had no recall of entire subplots, themselves new worlds of detail to discover.

I’m not dismissing the thesis of the article, there are disadvantages to the long-form book format. I’m not even saying more people should re-read more books. I’m just saying that the format lends itself very well to a tendency to revisit it.