>How to read a book by Adler>Why read the classics? By Calvino >How to read and why? By BloomWhy does this questions, that you would think are pretty easy and straightforward to answer, require hundreds and hundreds of pages?
>>24769919people get bored, they like to color in all the blank spaces
There are different approaches to reading, and unless you understand the way you read critically, you may have absorbed some bad ideas without knowing.
>>24769919For me it's >How Fiction Works by James Wood
If you have to ask this question you are almost certainly one of the functionally literate masses and never learned to read. This probably makes up 90% of people in the developed world and well over 99% of /lit/.
>>24769919
>>24771461I did read the Adler book thougheverbeit and it could have easily being trimmed down to 60 pages
I have read how to read and why by bloom and how to read literature like a professor by thomas foster. I just got the adler book
>>24771641Should have just read the headings really
>>24771641I have thought about doing that, but there's honestly very little of value in the book>>24771718guess I'll go look at Foster's book and see if there's anything useful in it
>>24771946Idk, I like the part on the beginning where he talks about why reading is the first real way of learning since it let's you process the information, stop and question the validity of it instead of simply hearing the teacher and accepted it as true since he is in a position of powerAnd the whole debacle about whole language and phonics and how it effectively fucked entire generations of children
>>24771978Much of the book's content is implicitly already understood by anyone with the capacity to read the book itselfIt is unnecessarily laboriousFor example:>The first thing a reader can say is that he understands or that he does not. In fact, he must say he understands, in order to say more. If he does not understand, he should keep his peace and go back to work on the book.>There is one exception to the harshness of the second alternative. "I don't understand" may itself be a critical remark.>To make it so, the reader must be able to support it. If the fault is with the book rather than himself, the reader must locate the sources of trouble. He should be able to show that the structure of the book is disorderly, that its parts do not hang together, that some of it lacks relevance, or, perhaps, that the author equivocates in the use of important words, with a whole train of consequent confusions. To the extent that a reader can support his charge that the book is unintelligible, he has no further critical obligations.>Let us suppose, however, that you are reading a good book. That means it is a relatively intelligible one. And let us suppose that you are finally able to say "I understand." If, in addition to understanding the book, you agree thoroughly with what the author says, the work is over. The analytical reading is completely done. You have been enlightened, and convinced or persuaded. It is clear that we have additional steps to consider only in the case of disagreement or suspended judgment.>The former is the more usual case.>To the extent that authors argue with their readers-and expect their readers to argue back-the good reader must be acquainted with the principles of argument. He must be able to carry on civil, as well as intelligent, controversy. That is why there is need for a chapter of this sort in a book on reading. Not simply by following an author's arguments, but only by meeting them as well, can the reader ultimately reach significant agreement or disagreement with his author.>The meaning of agreement and disagreement deserves a moment's further consideration. The reader who comes to terms with an author and grasps his propositions and reasoning shares the author's mind. In fact, the whole process of interpretation is directed toward a meeting of minds through the medium of language. Understanding a book can be described as a kind of agreement between writer and reader.>They agree about the use of language to express ideas. Because of that agreement...etc.This can be vastly cut down:>In order to evaluate a book, a reader must understand its contents, and be able to formulate claims about the text and support them with evidence and logic>If a book lacks coherence in form or content, introduces irrelevancies, fails to define its terms or uses them inconsistently, asserts unsupported conclusions, or contains other errors, a reader must be able to clearly demonstrate these flaws as they exist in the text
>>24771996Yeah, that's why I said it could easily being trim down a lot
>>24772075My point is, though, that while I've reduced that bloated wall of text to ~1/6th the size, the question remains: who would actually benefit from being told those two sentences? Perhaps a bright young child just starting to engage with formal literature, but I would expect any literate teenager or adult to already understand these basics of evaluation
>>24772093Well, taking into the account that Adler says in the intro that nowadays the education system puts so little emphasis on teaching kids to read properly by the time they reach highschool or hell even college they need to be given a corrective crash course to make up for itPlus those grim stats about how low the reading level is among normies, I do think it would benefit them
>>24772099I'll admit the possibility that I'm just being too pessimistic or too optimistic, depending on how one looks at it, although it doesn't seem that way to meIf there's actual interest, and people honestly think it would be useful, I could probably rewrite the book without the copious stuffing in a fairly short time
>>24772122I've seen people distilling it to a single page and image For instance the chapter about reading fiction could be cut in its entirety, since it basically boils down to (be consistent, don't take more than one month, enjoy :) )
>>24772161>I've seen people distilling it to a single page and imagelol, if you could dig that up I'd like to see it
I have read Adlers guide on inspectional reading twice now and it has saved me hundrets of hours throughout the years.Learning to identify slop by carefully reading the table of contents, foreword, publishers blurb, back cover and even just the title is great.It also introduced me to the idea that not every book worth reading is worth finishing and for most non-fiction I find that I am satisfied after 20-40%, usually the base thesis and a few specific later chapters.Believe it or not, my normie intuition before reading Adler the first time at around 18 was that you can only judge a book by the back cover alone and that a book not finished is a book you failed at.Perhaps I should proceed to read his stuff on analytical reading, or on some specific genres (history, poetry for example) What do the anons think?
>>24772505His stuff on analytical and parallel reading is good, same with the history section. I don't really remember the poetry section that much desu
>>24772165nta but I found this and it kinda sums it all up
>>24772165Here it is
>>24772505>It also introduced me to the idea that not every book worth reading is worth finishingwhat an outrageous failure of the educational system, that you were not introduced to this ideaFrancis Bacon famously presented this idea (in a much more succinct fashion than Adler) over 400 years ago>Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted, nor to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested; that is, some books are to be read only in parts; others to be read, but not curiously; and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Adler has a pretty silly hateboner for secondary or expository literature>What is the right approach? The answer lies in an important and helpful rule of reading that is generally overlooked.>That rule is simply this: In tackling a difficult book for the first time, read it through without ever stopping to look up or ponder the things you do not understand right away...What you understand by reading the book through to the end-even if it is only fifty percent or less-will help you when you make the additional effort later to go back to the places you passed by on your first reading...>Most of us were taught to pay attention to the things we did not understand. We were told to go to a dictionary when we met an unfamiliar word. We were told to go to an encyclopedia or some other reference work when we were confronted with allusions or statements we did not comprehend. We were told to consult footnotes, scholarly commentaries, or other secondary sources to get help. But when these things are done prematurely, they only impede our reading, instead of helping it.I strenuously object to the specific notion that one should read without stopping when encountering words one does not understandAdler actually performs the kind of dishonest goalpost-shift I would expect from an anon's shitpost:>The tremendous pleasure that can come from reading Shakespeare, for instance, was spoiled for generations of high school students who were forced to go through Julius Caesar, As You Like It, or Hamlet, scene by scene, looking up all the strange words in a glossary and studying all the scholarly footnotes. As a result, they never really read a Shakespearean play.Conflating looking up words one doesn't understand with 'studying all the scholarly footnotes' absolutely doesn't washContra Adler, I submit that a reader is wasting his time if he understands "only fifty percent or less" of what is being said, and would be extremely likely to have his eyes glaze over and fail to diligently attend to the text
>>24773656looks like a piss chart
>>24775355Dehydration is essential for Analytical Reading
>>24773774Adler uses that quote to explain why you should skim and skip books
>>24776068The point is, Adler bloviates to an incredible degree while adding almost nothing of value to Bacon's assertion
>>24776089TRVKE
