site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   3035 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for August 17, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Do you have any strong flashbulb memories from a fictional media experience? A video game, a book, a movie?

Flashbulb memories are memories for the circumstances in which one first learned of a surprising and consequential (or emotionally arousing) event. Hearing the news that President Kennedy had been shot is used as the prototype case. Almost everyone can remember, with almost perceptual clarity, where he was when he heard, what he was doing, who told him, what was the immediate aftermath, how he felt about it, and one or more idiosyncratic and often trivial concomitants

Some major realizations about culture when I was a teen reading The Diamond Age on lunch at the job I had then. Just looking at the cover takes me right back even though I've read that book at least ten times now.

I was in a half price books this weekend and saw a couple about my age looking at Anathem. I mentioned it was my favorite Stephenson book; they ended up buying it.

On the way out, I learned they’d come to the store looking for Dungeon Crawler Carl. I could only wish them luck.

Oh goodness gracious.

Follow-up small scale question: what is the motivation for you (or indeed anyone) to read a book more than once?

I am a fairly voracious reader-for-pleasure but I have never had any desire to re-read any book ever in my life. It seems not just pointless but actively opportunity-costly because you could be reading a new book?

There have been a few books that were especially well written that I read twice. The first time I'm too consumed with finding out what happens, plot progression, resolution of tensions etc. I overwhelmingly am interested in how the story ends, which distracts from some of the finer points of the writing, sub plots and characters that weren't critical to the main storyline etc. During a second read I already know how these things are going to resolve and can more enjoy the total quality of the writing. Most books aren't actually good enough to warrant this though. I can usually tell when I'm going to reread a series pretty soon after I start it too. Steven Erikson's books are a first example I can think of.

There are worlds in books, and I care to return to visit some of those on occasion. Why ever re-visit a place you've traveled when there are other places?

Often I understand a book differently because of the way I've changed in the intervening years. Sometimes I enjoy it much more, sometimes much less.

Also, after 10 years or so I've often forgotten much of what happened. So, for books where I remember there being some wonderful, moving scene, I can re-read it knowing I have something good in store, but not clearly remembering what it was.

I've got niche tastes (I used to be an omnviorous reader, but I prefer hard scifi these days), and I regularly exhaust the list of books I want to read. At that point, what's the harm in re-reading something? Especially when it's been so long that memories have faded.

I have some books that i read when I'm trying to sleep that I've read more times than I can count. The reason is that i find them to be cosy and get me in the right headspace to sleep. That I've read them before and know everything that happens is a plus not a minus in this case because what I'm trying to do is relax, not have novel experiences. I enjoy the characters, description and the language used itself.

Let me ask you this, do you ever relisten to music or do you just experience each piece the one time?

I never listen to music as the thing I’m paying attention to, so while I have certainly re-listened to albums, I don’t consider listening and reading to be comparable in this regard.

I read (some) books more than once because I love them and enjoy them just as much the second time. Sometimes more, because I will notice new things about the text I hadn't previously. It's not pointless to me, because I read for the enjoyment of the book, not just for novelty. Novelty is nice, but not a requirement. It doesn't even necessarily enhance the experience, as there are plenty of books I enjoyed reading the first time less than I would have enjoyed rereading something else.

I would also say your argument about opportunity cost can easily cut the other direction: if I read a new book, and I dislike it (which certainly happens), I have paid an opportunity cost versus just rereading a book I already liked. So either way, it seems to me that there is an opportunity cost to be paid.

Ten years ago, I read a lot of books multiple times, because I found them to be highly enjoyable experiences and finding new stories that interested me (mostly on fanfiction.net) took a lot of effort. For example: IIRC, I read Time Braid six times and The Three Musketeers four times.

Nowadays, though, I feel obsessed with novelty (mostly on royalroad.com) and re-read books only rarely. I don't know why my tastes have changed.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats