Ed Zubrow raises an interesting point:

>Complimenting two young list members for their interest and perceptions
>on classical music, Mike makes an interesting analogy. He is explaining
>the reasons he needs to listen to a piece several times before he feels
>he "appreciates" it. My question is whether the same principles apply
>to reading. I agree with what he is saying, but does this mean one needs
>to read something several times to get it?

It all depends on what you're reading, doesn't it?  I've been reading
Aristotle's Poetics for close to 40 years.  I still don't get it completely.
Indeed, I reread far more than I read.  Writers like Dickens, Hardy,
Sophocles, Homer, and Shakespeare change for me every time I read them.

On the other hand, I don't think I've ever re-read an Agatha Christie.
I enjoyed some of them, but I felt no reason to go back and enjoy them
again.

As far as listening goes, if I really got what I was listening to, I
doubt I'd go back.  For example, the Eroica took me several decades to
"get."  I certainly don't understand it completely, but I now have some
idea why it's one of Beethoven's best symphonies, as opposed to (in my
apostasy) one of his worst.  You can bet I'll be listening to it again.

Steve Schwartz