/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3325424]

Does anyone else have trouble beginning books they'd like to read because they feel they won't fully understand it and thus should read other books until they are 'ready'? I get this a lot, even if it's for books I might be able to handle.

if a book interests me, should I read through it despite fears of not fully grasping everything or wait until I feel more prepared?

[Anonymous No.3325451]

I will deliver this small piece of unexhaustible wisdom (for I am the inexhaustible sage): you never fully grasp anything. Truth is not something you grasp, but something you dive in, without having any idea of what it is.
So read, OP ! Start with the books that seems less impressive to you, if you want. But read what interests you nonetheless. You will be confuse, you will have a rough understanding of what you read at first (if you understand anything at all). It doesn't matter, you will get finer over time.

[Anonymous No.3325463]

>>3325451
thank you

[Anonymous No.3325482]

That's retarded, OP. Unless you're reading something that explicitly requires prior knowledge and background (like math), I can't see this being a problem.

[Anonymous No.3325488]

>>3325482
go read hegel cold and tell us what you learnt

[Anonymous No.3325495]

OP, that's actually a pretty good attitude to have, as long as you don't let it hold you back (which it looks like it is, unfortunately).

Perhaps it will motivate you to seek out further answers and context (historical, biographical, whatever) relating to what you're reading. And despite what some people say, there are some books/authors that you might benefit from reading certain works beforehand.

However, what the first poster said is mostly true. Don't worry about it too much, just let this desire to understand fuel your reading. Don't let it stop you.

[Anonymous No.3325505]

>>3325495
Also it is worth mentioning that understanding can (and in my experience, usually does) happen in hindsight.

Something you read may shed light on something you have read in the past, giving you further insight.

[Anonymous No.3325534]

>>3325463
You're very much welcome.
To further your point of >>3325495 being that cautious about your understanding of books will lead you to consider different ways of looking at a text, of pondering its implications and its limits. Building bridges between fiction and non-fiction should then be a bit easier for you.

[Anonymous No.3325535]

>>3325488

So are you saying that reading Hegel requires prior knowledge and background?

[Anonymous No.3325540]

>>3325535

[Anonymous No.3325568]

Same boat OP, I worry many times I'm not getting the full understanding of information in a book because I don't understand the context. But I've come to learn that it depends more on the author than it does your background knowledge

I am reading the Shock Doctrine right now, and despite knowing fuck all about the political and economic history of South America (which the first part of the book is greatly related to) I'm still following the main point perfectly. This is because the author has filled the reader in on the necessary details so it all makes sense in context. Better yet I looked some of it up on wikipedia or elsewhere where I was interested in more historical background.

Unless you are reading a textbook, most books will fill you in on what you cannot be expected to know. What you need to learn as that you'll never know anything, you could read your whole life and still you won't know shit about fuck. Understand that everyone is like this and that authors will fill you in. Remember it also if you plan to write or explain a topic/idea to someone else

[Anonymous No.3325598]

>tfw half way into Mason & Dixon and just now thinking I probably should have started with V.

[Anonymous No.3325621]

I have this same problem with history. I start reading a book about napoleon... about 100 pages in I feel like, "Shit maybe I should read about the french revolution/30 years war first then read this book."