In the years since I started reviewing books here at All Booked Up, I've tended to review the books I've re-read. Sometimes, the reviews stay mostly the same, but other times, I may have noticed something different about the book, or been reading it from a different perspective or emphasis, and that changes the review.
I've been thinking about it, though, and I haven't really noticed repeat reviews of the same book on other blogs I read. Is it that you don't re-read a book as often? That's certainly something I can understand, as there are times I feel a big guilty for re-reading when I have books I've been sent to read waiting, and there's so many other books out there to be read, or is it just because if it's already been reviewed once, there's no real point to repeating a review?
For myself, one other good reason for reviewing rereads is that without that review, there's going to be an even longer gap between posts and reviews. Sometimes that gap is far too long as it is.
If I'm reviewing a book that I've already reviewed, I will always make a point of mentioning that fact and linking the previous review. On the other hand, a lot of the books that are getting reviewed for the first time are books that I've read before, at some point before I started this blog back in 2008.
I'm just curious, because I can see reasons for choosing either way, and I wouldn't mind knowing what other people think. If perhaps there's something more interesting about a review for a book that's been read for the first time than there is for a book that you know already.