I think you’d be right if you were suggesting that to really understand a piece of work (to read like a writer) one has to read the piece twice. My problem is I seem to have too little time and too many books to read! I’ll generally try and grasp what the writer is trying to do the first time round and only re-read parts if I really enjoyed it or if the writer seems to have done something technically amazing.

Probably, your approach is better. Your two posts so far made me wonder: What is James Salter looking for if he hasn’t read a story for enjoyment first? Perhaps “fulfilment” is a better word than “enjoyment”? What I mean is: Surely, you have to know whether you liked a story or not first — before you pull it apart — else you’ll have an awareness of technique and craft but perhaps not a sense of what gives you pleasure or perspective, as a reader.

Anyway, just some thoughts. Looking forward to the next post