/lit/ - Literature

you need to break the seal. next time you read, mark up the book so wholly and inartfully that it never bothers you to do so again.

just use a pencil

don't be a fucking autist
if it's a paperback, soak it in ink and lead
if it's hardcover, be as gentle as you're compelled to be

>>5631305

I only write and highlight in first editions. Doing so in a paperback makes me feel like a poor person.

>>5631315
ALWAYS use a pencil. Otherwise you'll check again, some time later, and feel ashamed of how stupid your anotations were.

I cross out each word as I read. It helps me mark my progress.

>>5631330
that's a really good idea I'm going to start doing that

I don't even do any annotating. I have no idea what's worth noting down. I feel stupid as fuck sometimes.

>>5631305
annotations are for weak faggots with bad memory.

I was always taught not to mark my books, as they were something of a luxury when I was a child.

They kinda still are, and I'm loath to potentially ruin them for anybody else who might come into posession of them.

I mean, I'm aware that some people have a perverse liking for reading other people's annotations; like a window into their mind.

But well, I like to keep my things relatively pristine for some unknown future reader.

Even if when I die most of my things will probably be thrown away.

>>5631382
>people actually think this way

Are there any books/guides on how to annotate correctly?

>>5631392
>thinks that there's a proper way to take notes

>>5631390
>feeble-minded sperg

>>5631389
I inherited a fair amount of books from an old Duke professor by way of his grandson. Nearly every single one is annotated in some personal shorthand. His son is the only one who knows how to read it, but he doesn't read books.

After I got my pick of the books that were left the rest were thrown away by his grandson. I largely ignore the annotations.

Marking up your books is largely pointless unless you are a scholar that needs to refer back to that information. Personal annotations are redundant, because when you grow old and develop dementia neither you nor your progeny is going to care about them.

>>5631400

>>5631403
>when you develop dementia

I'm fucking immortal, anon-sama.

>>5631405
Wanna fuc?

>>5631370
You can:
>underline sentences that impact you
>separate the components of a complex structure
>write questions to check later
>remind yourself of where a certain part starts (for example, I really like one of Junger's descriptions of a chlorine attack so I added a small mark at the start and another at the end)
>anotate data that will become more important later (people do it with Pychon a lot)
Or pretty much anything you want, you'll be the only one chekcing it.

>>5631392
It's not really that difficult. Just underline things you find either insightful or confusing, make note of key terms, jot down thoughts or questions in the margins. It's basically just putting into writing what you should already be thinking while reading a book.

>>5631409
>I'm fucking immortal
No, you're a fucking faggot.

>>5631403
>Personal annotations are redundant, because when you grow old and develop dementia neither you nor your progeny is going to care about them.
two-bit trendy nihilism. Why even bother reading the books at all if you'll grow old and develop dementia

>>5631305
>So it's pretty common knowledge that...

Nice fabrication.

>>5631429
SHREKM8

>>5631305
I take a book in in an almost zen fashion, letting the words wash over me.

>>5631431
>Why even bother reading the books at all if you'll grow old and develop dementia


why bother doing anything if you'll grow old and develop dementia?

>>5631477
exactly my point pal
your options are to either annotate your books or kill yourself

>>5631431
I said the annotations are redundant not the books. Who doesn't want to spout random quotes from all the books they've read while they are demented and drooling?

What wrong with sticky notes?

You can just take notes on separate pieces of paper.

>>5631327
It's the shame that propels us.

>>5631305
Who are you planning on showing your books?
They're just books, mate. Who cares?
In fact, what makes it any ''less pristine'' after you've written in them? that's what books are for, they have stuff written in them all over the place.

>>5631305
>So it's pretty common knowledge that annotating while reading
topkek

>>5631836
>>5631464
>>5631305

Seriously though, is there any evidence that writing in a book will make you remember more thoroughly?

Ive heard similar things about reading a book that is on paper book rather than an ebook.

>>5632244
Alright, I don't have any sources, but I thought about it like this.
If you write, summarize or annotate when you're reading, you are actively working with the content. This is different from a more passive reading, where everything will just flow around your head and you only remember the general plot.

The ebook thing was based, I thought, on the idea of progressing information. Because we, as an older generation, have been taught reading with actual books and mark their content as 'important' when reading in our heads. The internet, however, has so much shit on it that your brain has to filter and seperate the more important stuff from the lesser important stuff. Because of this distinction, you read more actively when reading on paper.
But yeah, this is how it was explained to me and I have no idea if this is true or not, at least for the second one, the first one seems pretty logical

>>5631403
have you looked into it being actual shorthand?

>>5631305
source on pic?

Why do you care about the condition of worthless mass produced books?

You aren't scribbling in the original manuscript of the bible.

I hate annotating my books. I used to do it because everyone else did, but it get's in the way of actually ENJOYING the book. I remember I did it for Notes From the Underground and I ended up underlining every couple of sentences and it just became a chore and that's when I decided I enjoy books more when I didn't annotate them.

>>5632516
He, his son, and his daughter all confirm(ed) that it is a shorthand he devised on his own. Dude was a language professor so it's not surprising.

>>5631311

not op, but i love you.

I don't mark in books. If I want to take notes, I do so on a separate piece of paper. If I'm reading for pleasure, I don't take notes. It's too easy to get sidetracked and not give the book the attention it deserves: like people so busy typing down every word a prof says they miss the lecture and have absorbed nothing.

>>5633635
>they miss the lecture and have absorbed nothing
you don't absorb anything in class, only in review and you don't miss out by taking extensive notes.

>>5633667
Speak for yourself. I rarely reviewed notes, because I was actively learning in class. In any case, that was just an analogy. If you need to scribble and highlight your way through a book to understand it, you're doing it wrong.

>>5633696
I am speaking on behalf of scientific evidence that reviewing is where you actually learn. But keep believing your anecdotal shit