The story vs the words

So yesterday I got into a bit of an argument with my uncle about books. It was my mother's birthday, and my aunt and uncle had just given her a book (Breaking Dawn, in Dutch, which amused me to no end as my mother will never ever be anywhere near the stereotypical Twilight Saga reader, also, she hadn't heard of or read about any of it before...) Anyway, my uncle turned to me and said something along the lines of "it's so sad, giving people books as presents". Why, I asked him. Because you read them once and then are done with them, he said. (Ironic, since his preferred birthday presents are bottles of alcoholic substances, which rarely make it through the evening, but there you are.) I was to amazed to respond, but my aunt added; "yeah, I always read my books once, and then I'm done with them, so then I give them away." I found my voice, and said something like "the book I'm reading now I've already read 10 times before and will probably still read when I'm 50", to which my uncle snorted and said that he found that hard to believe. I then said that it all depends on what type of book you read; with some books, you are done with them after you've read them, because you know all there is to know (crime novels are a good example). But some books, which are generally called Literature, you can read over and over again, because its not about the story, its about the whole thing, the language, the message, the themes, the setting, the references, the words, the way the sentences flow, the characters, the psychology, and the story.

I think they got a bit angry after that, as if I was writing down the books they read.

But honestly, it's not as if I'm being snobbish about this. I've also read loads of books you just read once, then you know what it's all about, and then you don't have to ever read them again. Dan Brown's books are a good example: I read all of those, but only once, and I wouldn't read them again anytime soon. Once you get the plot, the whodunit, and the intended message, you're done. I've read some books for courses, some African and American and Indian literature, which I thoroughly enjoyed, but will probably never read again. I just don't get any more out of it than I already have (which is mainly due to the difference in background and literary culture, which is a shame, but it happens). This does not make these books any better or worse than 'literary novels', it just has a different purpose. (The irony here of course is that the books my aunt and uncle like to read are called "literary thrillers", which makes it seem as if they have any literary potential, while they really don't.)
I've read some books 10 times, and still don't 'get' them entirely. Atonement is a good example. Once you've read that, you know the trick, the thing, the extra surprise at the ending (which I won't spoil for you here). But that does not make you go 'owww, know I know what it was all along, I can just toss it out', it makes you go 'I have to read this again! Now that I know what it's really like, I can see the whole thing in a different light...'. And the second time you read it you discover all kinds of themes that weren't there the first time, and foreshadowing, and lines running through the novel which connect it from beginning to end even though it exists in four different parts. And then you read it again, and you discover even more... With other authors its about the use of language. Neil Gaiman is a good example here; his stories are also multi-layered, but they generally end up with the good guys winning (generally a girl) and the bad guys losing. You know this when you start. But his language, the proverbs, the little stories, the in-jokes, the references, everything is just so funny but thought provoking at the same time, that you can read it several times and still not 'get' everything out of it.
And now I'm just talking about contemporary authors, not even the great classical writers like Dickens Chekhov or Woolf or <fill-in-your-preferred-author>. Nothing much can happen in their stories, but still they are considered great authors, because it's not only about 'what happens'.

I know I've studied literature for four years, so I'm bound to look at it differently than your average 'pleasure reader', but I know there are many people out there without a degree in literature who think the same. Or experience the same, rather. And again, it's not that one type of book is better than the other, it's about what you need or want in a book, how you look at it, what it is supposed to do for you. If all you want is to be told a story, to be amused, to think about what will happen next and feel clever when you'd figured it out just a few pages before the protagonist does, then great, read on, dear friend. I would love to tell you that you're missing out, that other books could give you so much more, but if that's not the thing you're looking for (or have time for, or have the mindset for) then it won't do for you what it does for me. So we can both be happy reading what we're reading, even though we don't understand the other's choices. That's the great thing about books; you can escape in them.