Five years ago, I started to write a summary and impressions for every book read. It is very helpful to be able to CTRL+F through that document. And it made me realise how many of them I had forgotten (mostly mid books), but the notes are able to bring them back to memory. I do know also keep notes on long form articles I have read.

I was going to bring up that Emerson quote about not remembering books, but someone else already commented it. I'm pretty bad at remembering books and used to get frustrated at myself over it, but that quote/mindset did act as a salve. I will say that writing notes/thoughts/reviews on books in an organized fashion helps a lot. If it's been several years since I've read a book, not only do I forget the contents, sometimes I also forget if I even liked it or not. So these days I've started leaving 1-5 star ratings for the books I read, even though I had always (somewhat pretentiously) thought that was a stupid way to engage with art. Now it just helps me remember how much I liked a book at the time I read it.

I have a goddamn terrible memory. I can’t remember jack shit. This has advantages and disadvantages, but one of the former is that I can reread a book I read five years ago and experience it almost entirely as new. Almost, because I still retain _something_ of the first read, a sense, an understanding. So the reread — unless I’ve changed away from the book — is like the thrill all over again, but deeper.

yarb

1 month ago

It also means I don’t have to spend as much money on books.

3Reply

i was actually just thinking about this. i can remember specific details and visuals from books I read in 3rd-4th grade - but I don't know if I could tell you the specific plots of any of these books

Remembering what you read grows your knowledge base and makes you a "better" reader (not that it matters who cares), but it definitely allows you to draw on themes, archetypes, draw connections, and maybe even ascribe relevance to an experimental or satirical work. Although, I would say for fiction things are dropped into this sort of hazy memory gel that is only really called forward when I am reminded of, as you said some themes or a very memorable moment I can build off of. 5 years is definitely around the filtration point if something did not really rock me. Though, there are certainly things I will never forget. For non-fiction you should really be trying to put new information into you brain you can recall so you don't come across like you are telling contrived podcast stories, Notes help even if they get thrown away. Something something neuron pathways. Writing style to me is not an idea it is a projection of either: one's being and true voice (preferable), a played character, or attempts to upend or append (experimental). Sometimes I look at some of my own writing and am genuinely stumped that it was me. This can be maybe some trendy voice I was toying with, or times when I was not being myself. As I said, to me I would hope style conveys either some story of that which one is, or if you're really lucky a mastery of language. DFW is a good example, dude can clearly walk circles around the english language but has a very specific writing style with a good bit of slang and purposeful uses of "Like Uh,,,". He was writing as he was thinking, or pretending to be someone who was. Philip K Dick talks about automatic writing in his discussion of the Pink ??Something??, i forget (ironic!) but says a pink beam would fire into his head and the words would spill out yadda yadda. Something about the thrown-ness and the essentiality of "to write" seems to me like it dictates style and voice. What do I know I am just some kook!

I was inspired to ask this question thinking about The Unbearable Lightness of Being, which I read in my last year of high school. Despite being quite important, the plot has mostly escaped me - I do not even remember the female protagonists' names. However, I instantly recall ideas Kundera discusses: eternal recurrence, lightness, muss es sein, Czech sentiments towards Dubček and the Prague Spring, the ethereal, the life cycle of dogs etc. As if over time, the body of the work dissipated yet the blood remained. Like I'm sure many of you, I write on occasion, and ever since this question came to me I've started to question my approach. It's said that anyone can come up with a good idea, the difficulty lies in writing it. But if what rests with me after the fact is the idea? Can writing style in itself be an idea?

Honestly, I don't know if I've ever heard this question asked this bluntly -- it seems to me there's this presumption that one should only read to remember. Which is fine for scientific texts, less fine for novels. When I think about different phases of my life, there are different capacities -- I vividly remember a lot of books I read in high school, for example, often whole paragraphs I can quote verbatim. But more recently, that's much less likely. Usually I can at least remember a vibe, but certain books (usually ones I didn't much care for) I don't even have that. Some books, absolutely, but they're relatively few. I agree with the other commenters that I don't think it's at all necessary to remember the things I've read, because sometimes the mood or the style is a whole lot more important than just the plot points, and sometimes the memory of a book is there, even if it's not immediately apparent. A bit like when you're learning a language and you smack yourself a little for not being able to immediately recall a word... "lazy is 'paresseux,' of course you knew that you dumb fuck." Likewise, "that scene was in V., of course you knew that you dumb fuck." Which is fine, reading, like learning a language, is a means of dancing with the world, and sometimes you're not as quick on your feet as you'd like. I think this is probably a product of the information-soaked world. Even non-readers are exposed to more textual information now in a year than they would have in a whole lifetime a few decades ago. And for the capital-R Readers, that applies as well, not to mention that there's a whole lot less cultural capital in being able to recite Pushkin.

For fiction novels (which is most of what I read), I find the most memorable parts of the book being the emotional impact it had on me, as well as things I admired about the writing at the time. I wouldn't be able to recall scenes and details, but I can remember reading how much I enjoyed the prose of a certain writer, or their ability to create meaningful dialogue, etc. My perspective on the fiction books I read is largely that it serves as a source of entertainment, so I wouldn't say I ascribe much value onto how much of it I can remember. I don't think it's really indicative of how good or bad a book is either, for me a lot of it has to do with where I was at that point in life or other similar factors. I also agree with tgestabrook's comment - there's definitely a lot that happens subconsciously.

10 years ago, I was just starting high school, which was an especially tumultuous period of my life. However, I can remember a decent portion of the books I read, vague scenes, and occasionally the emotional impact. More importantly, if I try, I can probably trace a direct line to whatever books I read now from a book I read then. I can attribute my worldview not to the authors I read then, but to authors I read because of what I read then. “I cannot remember the books I've read any more than the meals I have eaten; even so, they have made me.” -- apocryphally attributed to Emerson

I don't consciously retain most of what I read very long, especially if I didn't have to retrieve any of it for school, discussion, book clubs, etc. Maybe it's cope, but I'm not too bothered for two reasons: First, I suspect that continuing to read forgettable books helps one stay 'in shape' for the impactful books (i.e. it's not the about retaining the content but just preserving the habit and capacity for reading). Second, I really believe that conscious memory =/= unconscious memory -- just because the details aren't available consciously doesn't mean a book didn't move things around under the surface.

I'm trying to think of things I read more than 5 years ago (but not re-read since) and still remember vividly, and honestly none come to mind... a few with an especially unique perspective have left the feeling of being exposed to that perspective for the first time (The Dispossessed, Bartleby, At The Mountains of Madness). I think I only remember actual details or quotes of the stuff I re-read continuously (mostly Borges). The question does make me wonder about why we read stuff, and how much of it is for in-the-moment enjoyment (or in-the-moment insight or learning or whatever). I know I'm not reading to just learn facts, but aren't the details the building blocks that make up whatever I am hoping to gain from reading? Maybe it would be worth trying to remember more actively. Interesting question and I'm curious to hear what others think.