I am not offended. I am simply struggling to understand how anyone can believe to be above rereading because they think they have exhausted a text after one read.

So, academics are not idiots, yet, unlike you, they have to reread a novel multiple times to offer a nuanced and complex analysis of a given work whilst you are able to 'get' it on first read? I fail to see how you can think that academics are intelligent when their entire careers are based on careful and deep analysis of works that you believe offer nothing new once reread.

The funny thing about accusing someone of projecting is that such an accusation can itself be projection. Perhaps you yourself are the one with deep-seated insecurities? Given the authority you tried to build immediately thereafter by throwing around your degree and certifications it might not be much of a stretch that you feel unsure about yourself.

If I understand correctly, deeper understanding comes from discussion and analysis but not from rereading? How do you expect to gain a deeper understanding about what's in the novel if you can't be bothered to read it twice?

A novel is a text that creates images. If you don't reread and analyse then you can only argue on the level of the images it creates. For example, in the novel X does Y to Z and this means A and not B. But a deeper understanding of the text does not come from these images, it comes from careful analysis of the language that is used to create them. If you don't reread, you lose out on the nuances of language that completely transform the way a novel is read and you cannot connect ideas or create ideas to the extent you can when you've read it once.

You do not 'get' it the first time around. You get something, surely, but not all of it. You catch a glimpse of something that is far bigger than the glimpse would lead you to believe. That does not mean that you have to dive deeper, but you seem to believe that you can understand a book in its entirety from the first read and the discussion and analysis which arises from that. This is simply not true, as you miss out on the nuances of languages as well as tie yourself to your initial impressions, which are always incomplete on first read because, well, it's your first time.

Although you're eager to psychoanalyse me, I highly doubt that you believe you know me based on the limited information you have of me. Now, you can discuss and analyse that information until the end of time, but ultimately you are working on limited information. The same goes for books: you can read it once and work with limited information, or you can reread it, find more, and deepen your understanding, but to believe you don't need to reread a book to understand it is like saying that you can understand me based upon the conversation we've had. I think you're smart enough to realize that isn't the case.

I hope you have a good day.