The other day Nikhil posted a link to this article titled "The Guilty Pleasures of Rereading".

The blurb quote was interesting:

Come on now, it’s never about the new meanings you grasp each time revisit a book. It’s the comfort of the same old story and the same old characters and the same old ending, every single time

Upon rereading the piece it appears that Arunava may have actually penned this half in jest. Reading a text is as much as reading the words as it is trying to read what isn't in the exact words by underneath. And thus, the act of reading is an act of exploration of cognitive abilities. The text and the sub-text reveal layers based on the expansion of reasoning ability and assimilation of experiences of the reader. An author may not specifically be attempting to address this space when the narrative is being weaved but eventually, the likes/dislikes of the audiences center around this specific point - whether they are able to accept, adapt and assimilate the psyche and the experiences in the story.

I reread a lot. And, besides the need to find 'comfort' in the same old characters and the same old story, the primary need is to understand. A typical example could be Gitanjali. 

Thou hast made me endless, such is thy pleasure. This frail vessel thou emptiest again and again, and fillest it ever with fresh life

Or,

আমারে তুমি অশেষ করেছ,   এমনি লীলা তব--
ফুরায়ে ফেলে আবার ভরেছ,   জীবন নব নব ॥

In a Bengali household, the kid would be having access to Gitanjali at a fairly and, I say, ridiculously early stage in life. It takes a leap of perception and experiences to understand and appreciate the above lines.

The reason we reread isn't to experience the memories of where and when we first read that piece of text (hell ! for me it would be the unpleasant stench of adulterated diesel fumes at the 8B bus stand at Kolkata for most pieces of text !). We reread because we want to assimilate the experiences in the text with the abilities and understanding and more importantly, the acceptance we have of reality. We want to fit it into our mental map of the world as we see it at that point in time. Surprisingly for an author, and, a translator, Arunava decides to give this point a skip and wax eloquent about Flury's and all that is fluffy. Rereading books isn't exactly similar to having a pot of mishti doi. And, even in that stupendously shallow example, try feeding that doi to a 6 month old kid, a 6 year old, a 16 year old and a 60 year old at various times of the year - you'd bet that they will respond differently each time. Tactile experiences, including reading experiences are different. That an author doesn't want to write about it is astounding. That an author passes somewhat snide remarks is equally absurd. If all that a reread does is take you back to the first time, then as a reader you've failed. And the author needs other serious readers than you.

I was looking through this review and noticed a strange thing - the original reviewer found his/her own review "helpful". Either burrp.com is slipping up or, they don't appear to give a rodent's posterior to user reviews. I tend to think that it is the latter. Else reviews like these along with some like these shouldn't actually get posted if they haven't gone through a bit of spelling, grammar and accuracy checks by the site editors. The abominable spelling bits is not limited to this site though. A quick glance through most of the ones on tripadvisor reveal the same trend. Which brings up the question as to why the text input area doesn't offer a default spell-check. Don't the sites care for the quality of the reviews ?

Speaking of quality of the reviews, burrp.com could perhaps start using a template. Personally, if I am going to look up an eating joint there are a few things I am curious about :

• quality of food - was it 'memorable' ? As in, would you visit it again with friends ?
• quantity of food - was it 'tiny piece of chicken on a huge plate' ? Or, would you say that it was good enough as expected ?
• hygiene/cleanliness - cutlery, crockery, upholstery and the rest-rooms
• ambience - how is the place ? noisy/relaxed/smoky etc
• kind of food - is the menu treading on 'safe ground' ? Or, does it allow you to indulge in something out of the ordinary ?
• service - is the service snappy or, snobbish ? Do they listen to what you were saying ?
• time of the day - what time of the day did you visit ?
• your meal - what did you order ? How was it presented ?

That's probably the basic list of stuff that should be there. Most of the time the reviews are either gushing with misdirected praise or, seething with inappropriate anger. Will these sites ever shape up and fix things ? I don't think so. Not unless they see an alternative site coming up with enough eyeball power to goad them into healing themselves.