How to Read a Book

[Anonymous No.16562600]

Alright, about a week ago some anons recommended me this and a few called it a waste of time: I decided to read it myself and judge it myself. I thought it was very lacking in brevity and went over itself far too often—almost condescendingly, as if they worried the reader would either try to find gaps in their explanation by the omission of previously stated propositions or details—and easily could have been 100 or so pages shorter. I don't think I've become a better reader but I did find its information on reading enlightening in the ways it can make one a more organized note taker or perhaps a more attentive reader(if one lacks in those departments). I'm a native English speaker, unlike most of the board, so I found little insight besides that; if you are an ESL, you will probably find more use in the book. If I ever do much syntopical reading, I might employ the steps they suggest but I don't think I would've struggled without knowing them, rather, they propose efficient ways of beginning multibook research. Overall, I don't think the book is a waste of time but it's valuable more on the information about reading that may aid you in discussions about expository literature—less so in making you a superior reader.

[Anonymous No.16562624]

now read this

[Anonymous No.16562990]

>>16562600
>I'm a native English speaker, unlike most of the board, so I found little insight besides that; if you are an ESL, you will probably find more use in the book.
What does that have to do with anything? The advice is completely language-independent.

Also, the book cannot be half the length without loss. You're not as attentive a reader as you think you are. When you think Adler merely repeats a point, he does more, he builds on it.

Seriously, please read carefully now. One thing he repeatedly points out to readers is to suspend judgement before digesting the content, to carefully read what the author writes and not jump to conclusions prematurely, but you people always miss it. This is in fact the central point of the book and all the steps are subservient to it. This art of extracting the author's intention and not framing it in your own terms, polluting the author's message with your preconceptions is a very difficult one. Notice how he often mentions that reading is an art that can never be truly mastered? Ever wondered what he even means by that or did you just filter these questions out, because they didn't square with what you thought the book was about? Did you notice how he mentions the authors of the hermeneutical commentaries on the Bible as the prime examples of the best readers ever? What was that about, eh? What's with the fetishizing of the Great Books and Adler belittling his own writing skills? Did you get what he meant by that? The first part of the book is to get you to realize the importance of reading as much of what the author wrote and as little of what you inject into the text. The steps he enumerates are to guide you to finally start learning how to read in this way. The book is a unified whole built around first seeing this concept and then getting some tools to get you started.

You can lead a donkey to water, but getting it to drink is another problem entirely.

[Anonymous No.16563934]

>>16562624
why?

[Anonymous No.16564019]

>>16562990
Get your head out of your ass. The books prose is terribly repetitive—one can build on a point without expounding, at the same length, what has been previously said about that point. Not much would be lost had Adler been briefer or more focused: Every chapter or so he reminds the reader that prior steps are encompassed in the next—if you think the omission of such repetition would result in a great loss, you're what he would call a reader who is too ready agree with an author without understand why. You can lead a donkey to water but trusting him to not drown in it is another problem indeed. A reduction in the subject matter and a reduction in the words used to cover it are different—not that a bloated corpse like yourself would know, for you hold the work as so sacrosanct you engulfed yourself in it until it obscures your perspective.

[Anonymous No.16564070]

>>16564019
And here you go throwing strawmans like a retard, reading things I haven't written. Unironically learn how to read. I guess the book wasn't repetitive enough for you because you still don't get it.

[Anonymous No.16564154]

>>16564070
Nice argument moron. I 100% addressed and refuted points you made about the book’s “justified” length; and you say I’m making a straw man and you call me foolish? Perhaps you ought to do some syntopical reading on how not to be a faggot who can’t have a debate without resorting to lies and name calling.

[Anonymous No.16564202]

>>16564154
>I 100% addressed and refuted points you made about the book’s “justified” length
lol, you just negated my point without understanding it and proceeded to assert that I accept pointless repetitions (I don't) and hold the book sacrosanct (I don't)

[Anonymous No.16564227]

>>16564202
So you’re implying the book isn’t repetitive? And you disagree that the instant I gave of it being such as being valid? Otherwise what else are you disagreeing on? And the reason I suggested you hold the book in too high regard is your adamant defender of it despite what I see to be valid critiques: it’s lack of brevity and the benefits on one’s ability to read.

[Anonymous No.16564246]

>reading a book with this title
Are you mentally challenged by any chance?

[Anonymous No.16564328]

>>16564227
>what I see to be valid critiques: it’s lack of brevity and the benefits on one’s ability to read.
I wrote you a thoughtful long-winded post about the central point and the purpose of the book that you clearly missed (I know it from reading the OP), engage with that post or don't. I don't worship the book, but I do think it has something important to say and I see many /lit/ards miss it entirely (see my post). I don't care about discussing tiny details where there might have been some legit repetition, it's been some time since I've read the book and I'm not opening it again just to argue pointless shit with you. If you think your "ability to read" can't benefit from Adler and you can't answer the questions from my post, you're wrong. A rule like "only criticize when you understand" can be understood in a different light when you have more information, which is, in my humble fucking opinion, why Adler seems to repeat himself so much, but, like I said, the repetition has a purpose.

[Anonymous No.16564350]

>>16564246
yes I'm retarded how did you know?

[Anonymous No.16564504]

>>16564328
You seem to keep arrogantly assuming I didn't read your post or that I read it poorly, or that I read the book itself inattentively, when you seem to be the one with the competency issue. Never did I suggest, or even hint at, that those matters covered were not valuable in the books expositions but it was the manner of covering them—the often overly repetitive style that "goes over itself" multiple times—to be what caused the lack of brevity. And frankly the arrogance and idiocy is beginning to annoy me. Also, you clearly didn't read the book carefully or my post carefully: regarding the latter, I said it was "valuable more" on the information it provides and less so on the improving your reading, and if you were a native English speaker you'd know that means that I'm not explicitly saying that it is useless in improving your ability to read; on the former issue, assuming that all people will benefit from reading the book is stupid because Adler himself states that it only aides those who otherwise are not yet able to preform certain steps or stages of reading—you arrogantly assume that my statement on his affects on me is objective on the book's effect on others. I myself am an English student at University, I spend a lot of time reading analytically and syntopically. If you are already a good reader, in the ways the books suggest you might be, then the book will not give you more understanding—hence my point on its value of the information it provides. Again, get your ESL head out of your ass—not everyone is as stupid poorly read as you. How boorish.

I praised the book and gave a fair critique of it's value to me. The fact that you think it correct to question my competency, despite how wrong you were, is embarrassing. Perhaps you should read the book again, not so you can argue about, but you so you actually learn to read. Faggot.

[Anonymous No.16564788]

>>16564504
Wow, that's a lot of effort in protecting your ego that went into that post. I'm sorry my arrogant way of expressing myself made you reveal your laughable credentials (English student at University lol) and write in a try-hard manner. Next time I meet a dumbass like you I'll try to be more polite, so they can focus on the content of my fucking posts. When you stop crying, go over it again and try to answer the questions. I know you're wondering about them.

[Anonymous No.16564804]

>>16564788
I accept your concession, dumbass. Maybe read English 101 first.

[Anonymous No.16564831]

>>16564804
Did you notice how you throw my own insults back at me? "l2read" "dumbass" Except for that ESL thing, that's not an insult you sad fuck. Cope, I tried to educate you, but I failed.

[Anonymous No.16564894]

>>16564831
You act like I haven’t refuted your dumb points and that it isn’t you who avoids the dialogue. Pathetic. Learn to read, ESL.

[Anonymous No.16564895]

Just read the wikipedia page. That's all you need

[Anonymous No.16564909]

>>16564894
>>16562990
This, but more polite, so you don't cry as much.

[Anonymous No.16564935]

>>16564909
>>16564019
>>16564154
>>16564227
>>16564504
These but shorter so you actually read them.

[Anonymous No.16564946]

>>16562600
>if you are an ESL, you will probably find more use in the book.
That's probably why it's shilled so much.

[Anonymous No.16564954]

I do enjoy the irony of being compelled to repeat myself because someone else’s stupidity.

[Anonymous No.16564965]

>>16564935
Ok, let's end this now, but you insult me in an original manner. One you didn't steal literally from my last post. Come on, go, I know you can do it!

[Anonymous No.16564986]

>>16564965
I accept your concession, nigger.

[Anonymous No.16565016]

>>16564986
originally lol'd

am not >>16564965

but have come to say low tier and not funny

but i giggled

the fuck is wrong with me

[Anonymous No.16565028]

>OP calls a book for ESLs
>the entire thread is an ESL seething about it
Oh /lit/, never change

[Anonymous No.16565039]

>>16562600
I agree! I disliked the book, probably one of the few books I quit halfway

[Anonymous No.16565796]

>>16565039
Consider revisiting the chapters about certain book types if you find yourself reading those types of books i.e. history, science and maths, or philopshy, to name a few. They all have a chapter

[Anonymous No.16566163]

The Intellectual Life by sertillanges might be better if you just want some advices for reading. You can pretty much only read chapter 6 if that's all you are interested

[Anonymous No.16566180]

>>16566163
Sry, it's actually Chapter 7: Preparation for Work where he gives advice for how to read

[Anonymous No.16566367]

>>16563934
because it's better than HTRAB and contains excellent recommendations you wouldn't get from /lit/ (for the most part), and it's written by an acolyte of Harold Bloom

[Anonymous No.16566855]

>>16566163
>The Intellectual Life
Perfect choice for books to read in public—I can't wait to crack it open in the middle of the cafe

[Anonymous No.16566932]

00 get

[Anonymous No.16567322]

>>16562600
I tried to read this but didn't know how.

[Anonymous No.16567456]

>>16562600
You have to remember that this book was designed for a popular audience, during a time when it was less-likely you would ever go back to college/night-school, or ever find any educational path again. They had to cover their bases and be explicit.
The fact that you could even analyse your experience of the book, is a large suggestion that you were not the main target audience for the book, generally.
>I don't think I've become a better reader but I did find its information on reading enlightening in the ways it can make one a more organized note taker or perhaps a more attentive reader
This assumes that a) the book would make you a better reader through osmosis - as if you didn't have to put the effort in to apply its steps afterwards and b) that being more organised and and attentive to reading it's a standard of "better" reading.
I know you enjoyed it, but your criticism is showing a lack of self-awareness, not only of your ability prior to the book, but the perspective and habits that you will likely take away from it.

[Anonymous No.16567462]

>>16567456
isn't a standard of "better" reading*