/lit/ - Literature

Don't fucking waster your time reading the whole book.

Just read summary on the internet so you get the good parts. That book is not very well written.

>>16997091
or perhaps it was not very well read?

>>16997091
Well that just backs up my point. Surely in the last 48 years someone would have created a better version of the book?

>>16997166
>that any teacher, save those who discovered the subject he or she teaches, is inferior to the Great Books as a source of comprehension.
I'm curious how he justifies that given what we know about learning.

>>16997091
> the book is not very well written

Says some ramdom anon, without a valid argument

>>16997085
why the fuck would you need a book telling you how to read a book LMAO

>>16997085
It's a good book, unironically, jerks who can't read right bash this book.

>>16997584
Read the book first, then try to make any sense to your statment

>>16997085

>>16997085
i havent read but i guarantee its pure cringe. heres a tip: read and then take a pleasant walk and try to recall or find arguments in your head about what you read. this is way better than any of the bs this book could offer.

>>16997642
You haven't read book yet calling it bs

>>16997665
Quintessential /lit/

>>16997642
> hurr durr, book bad bs because it's a book dum dum

Cope and lame, still not a valid argument

>>16997665
>>16997703
>>16997698
well have you read it? does it tell you to walk and think?

>>16997085
the first edition was published in 1940

it's shit

>>16997085
It's a waste of time. Maybe worth it if you're ESL. That's probably why it's shilled here so much come to think of it

>>16997734
nothing published after like 1940-1960 is truthful or good. not sure what you're trying to imply with your reply.

>>16997578
>>16997099
The author himself says that the book is a mess you idiot.

ITT: don't read this book because is bs.

> oh, I don't read it yet, but is bs
> useless because it's old, but yet don't read it
Go back with valid arguments pseuds...

>>16997756
Well, he does a good job filtering pseuds.

This book is one of the many cases of a book that could have been written in many less words. 5% of the book is the useful advice, while the rest is old man babbling.

>>16997811
I think you might be babbling because can't read properly.

>>16997085
>read a book on how to read I must
stop wasting your time dude

ok, so you read this book if you don't know how to read a book?
but then how are you supposed to read it if you don't know how to read a book? it's a paradox

>>16997166
>>16997085
Mortimer Adler in particular is incredibly /lit/ and actually read plenty of "Great Books." There's far less interest in reading nowadays due to the internet.
This aside, 'newer' doesn't always mean 'better.' Picrel. The Stoics got it right the first time, and the zoomer modern translation about "The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck" just dilutes and fucks up the original message.
How to Read a Book would still be the OG, though it's titled better "How to understand what you read."

>>16997908
>This aside, 'newer' doesn't always mean 'better.' Picrel.
Of course, but in the last 48 years there's been some pretty big changes in the field of educational psychology, surprised none of it has been significant enough to include in a revised version.

>>16997919
The closest equivalents I can think of is probably "Ultralearning" (self-help tier, reads smart but ultimately forgettable).
More legit techniques for reading is the development of "incremental reading" with Anki/SuperMemo.
The introductions of intro-level textbooks also tend to give advice on a textbook (basically the SQ3R method with extra steps).

>>16997908
Totally based, thanks anon

I've read it. It uses many words for rather simple concepts, but it's a quick read by not being terribly complex, so you might as well spend an afternoon it if you're afraid of missing something. Still, summary anons have a point.

>>16998658
Does it actually offer much different to SQ3R + "think about the context of the book"?

>>16998736
Judging by the wiki article on SQ3R, they're very similar. There's some stuff about how reading works on the different levels which I don't know if SQ3R goes into detail on. How to apply the techniques to different types of literature. How to criticize and engage with the author. Contents aside it's great if you're lacking motivation to read, which comes and goes in periods for me. Gets you in the critical reading mood.

>>16997085
What, just because it's published in the 70s that means it's "too old" for you? It's not even that long ago.

>>16997613
I don't know what this is, but if it's meant to sell on the book it doesn't do a good job, and if it's meant to summarize on the book well enough it doesn't do a good job.

>>16997085
Whick book should I read before that? To understand how to read a book

>>16998953
I would start with this before tackling actual books. Mastering the fundamentals gets you a much more solid understanding than if you dive right in immediately.

>>16997091
lol, you failed at reading
>>16997756
>The author himself says that the book is a mess you idiot.
lol, you failed at reading
>>16997176
Reading the Great Books for math is plain wrong, for science it's questionable (still useful because many science textbooks don't take a proper foundational approach, of course Adler's disdain for lab work in education is dumb), but he's 100% correct for philosophy. No secondary literature can replace what you can get from reading the original authors.
>>16997738
>It's a waste of time. Maybe worth it if you're ESL.
wew, this retarded point again, will I finally see this dumbass "reasoning" explained?
>>16997811
lol you failed at reading
>>16997897
>>16998953
You're having a laugh, but this chicken and egg problem is definitely there. Look at all the anons who failed at reading it. It has to do more with attitude then ability though. Thinking you have nothing to learn about reading, going in with having your mind made up about the contents of the book and then speed reading with little comprehension or care for "listening" to the author will lead you to glaze over the whole fucking point. There is a structure to the book and if you think a summary can replace it, you failed to find it.

>More like
Mortimer J. Sneed
& Chuck Van Dorken

>>16997085
>upon
Fucking kill yourself.

>>16997613
What a fuckin nerd. Why don't you just, i don't know, read the book? goddamn

>>16997085
Yes, it's a really good book in helping you get the most out of the books you're reading.
People like this guy >>16997091 got filtered hard and need to read it again, but this time using the points made in the book.

>>16999368
??

>>16999724
No one but pseuds use a preposition like "upon". Unless you're ESL, which is forgivable.

>>16999798
>No one but pseuds use a preposition like "upon". Unless you're ESL, which is forgivable.
Place yourself upon a high roof and jump. Make sure you don't land upon anyone.

>>16999798
fucking retard

>>16999856
Cope. Uncommon words make you feel smart because you're insecure.

>>16999846
kek

>>16999867
Uncommon words make you feel angry because you're a brainlet.

>>16999885
It's two syllables. Nothing to not understand.

>>16999901
Ya but u not b gettin it doh, foh

>>16999798
lmao u r a moron. place yourself upon a roof and then jump ofon it

>>16999901
So you're saying that comprehending said preposition does not place undue strain upon your mental faculties?

>>16997085
>How to read a book
>Is a book

>>16999798
Retard

>>16997756
>people with this level of reading comprehension browse and post on this board every day

>>17000049

>>17000176
Exactly, it's a worry, /lit/ criticize books without even read it.

>>16997738
>It's a waste of time. Maybe worth it if you're ESL. That's probably why it's shilled here so much come to think of it
only a smelly monolingual could've written this

>>16997811
The vast majority of "advice books" are like that, most prominently self-help shit like Tony Robbins or even worse: Seth Godin.

I will never read this book.

>>17001136
Why not?

>>17001118
Still is not a self-help book, maybe you need a self-help book for failing at reading.

>>17001352
Because I don't know how to read a book.

>>17002557
Then you should read this book, so you can learn how to read a book

I fucking hate this retarded book and anyone who reads it

>>17002649
t. hasn't read the book

>>17002673
well maybe he just hates himself too, that's a possibility

>>16999972
Of course it doesn't, you silly willy.

>>17000093
>>16999856

>>16999936
>>16999846
It doesn't work. I can't die. I am immortal.

>>16997091
>That book is not very well written.
What do you even mean by this?

>>16997613
>read the book 3 times
>take notes
>compare to other books

holy.....i want more....

>>17003716
>NOOOO THAT'S NOT ALL THERE IS TO IT!!! YOU HAVE TO READ THE WHOLE BOOOOK! YOU CAN'T REDUCE IT TO A SIMPLE IMAGE NOOOOOOO!!!!

>>16998953
Start with the Greeks

>>16997613
Do you guys do superficial reading?
It seems like a pain in the ass for novels and long books.

>>17004794
It's never meant for novels in the first place and I don't ever do superficial reading, I have a slightly different process. This pic is what happens when a retard reads Adler. Adler isn't primarily about the rules, it's about recognizing all the different ways in which you can fail at reading (not understand or misunderstand a book) and working out a process to avoid these pitfalls. The awareness of them and the reasons they happen is the most important takeaway.

>>16997085
See:
>>/lit/thread/S15669161
>>/lit/thread/S15677278
>>/lit/thread/S15686119

>>16997642
>pleasant walk
fag

>>16999798
Why do you say that? I see it often in papers I read.

>>16999867
>Uncommon words
Ok but what does that have to do with upon? Not everybody is American. I bet you freak out when people use fortnight too.

>>17005547
>tripfag being a retard
saved you a click

>>16997777
based retard digitchad