This is gonna be one of those odd posts so please give me some leeway while I try to figure out what I'm asking!
I just read the "Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever" by Stephen Donaldson after about 20 years and I found myself in a strange position. The books were old enough not to be readily remembered, but i found myself remembering every key plot point before it happened, ruining the story for me. Now this might not have been a problem if the stories were better crafted, but the writing itself holds no joy, merely a construct to support the telling of the story. Yet! The fact that I remember these plot points so well after 20 years surely says something about the writing. I'm just not sure what.
So, in comparison, I'm now reading the Belgariad by David Eddings. A book (or series) that when I first read I found simplistic and childish. And yet, I'm thoroughly enjoying them because I remember very little of the story, and as an adult I find his writing much more "knowing" than I perceived as a kid. The sum total of my memories of this series are of Belgarion trying to lift a rock and sinking (which may well be Pug from the Magician and not this series at all), and a princess wanting a bigger bust on her Armour. Thats it. Everything in these books are new to me, like I'm reading them for the first time.
So, my question is, which is better? Books that I can remember every plot point before it happens, but which give me no joy to read, or books that I'm enjoying with fresh eyes, but that failed to make any significant impression on me after the first reading?
If you were a writer, which would you strive for?