[gabriel666smith]

One of my favourite things a book (or video games, paintings - every single type of art) can do is: On first read - hint that there are stories hidden under the surface, available only to those who have already experienced the art's end point.

I think this is an act of a generosity. It shows that an artist is not only competent enough to execute something that complex, but also thinking deeply of their audience's time and money. It's hospitable: One of more virtuous virtues, IMO.

The best art should reveal itself to you over years, as you change as a human, and your sense of yourself - and the world you live in - changes. I think that should always be the aim of the artist.

You can't swim the same river twice; the same river can't be swum twice by the same person. Some rivers are much better for swimming :-)

[bmacho]

> The best art should reveal itself to you over years, as you change as a human, and your sense of yourself - and the world you live in - changes.

Or: a single book that you enjoy different parts of it depending on your life situation is not better at all than if it were several different books instead, one for each life situation. A book for all ages is no better than a kid + an adult book. Maybe in a practical standpoint.

[gabriel666smith]

I don't think books are things you can benchmark & create rankings of (fun as it would be to try) which I guess my initial comment implied.

But I think I might disagree - my sister recently had a daughter, and there is so much beauty in the books I (am rarely able to) read to her. My appreciate for Mog's (to pick one example) artistic achievement has only grown by looking at it from a different time in my life.

It's not effective in the same way as it was - I don't find the narrative quite as suspenseful as I remember, for example - but this is sort of exactly what I'm talking about, condensed into a very basic analogy.

If anything, I'm enjoying reading Mog far more! And certainly more than I would enjoy a spin-off 'X-Rated Mog for Adults' series.

I'm being a little facetious, obviously. But I'm going to stick on this one.

[malnourish]

I also seek this type of story out. I like Gene Wolfe; you might, too.

[bmacho]

> I think this is an act of a generosity. It shows that an artist is not only competent enough to execute something that complex, but also thinking deeply of their audience's time and money.

If the artist is thinking deeply of her audience's time then she should not make the book (or art) worth rereading. Putting things at the beginning that only make sense at the second reading is rude and inconsiderate to the audience.

Well, this is my view of the books or shows that have rewatchability anyway. Fuck them, I won't. Also screw the artist for messing with my time.

[gabriel666smith]

Haha. It's lucky that art is subjective, so I'm definitely right :-)

I wasn't saying a piece shouldn't stand on its own on first viewing - that is not hospitable, IMO. I think you misinterpreted what I was trying to say: That I like art that has prismatic qualities, ie, revealing different things when looked at from a different time and place.

This isn't mutually exclusive with the first angle you come at it from being beautiful. It's just additive.

[amonroe805-2]

This is sort of a strange reply. You don’t have to spend any time on art at all really. For many people, the more they can spend time enjoying the art they like, the better. If you don’t like the art, that’s one thing, but if you do like it, why must it be shorter?

The video game community is often pretty explicit about this. They want their favorite games to be longer, not shorter, because they want to spend more time enjoying it. I don’t think it’s so strange that people may apply the same mentality, to books, movies, etc as well.