I’ll look like a real ass here if I don’t have a summary, but I’m still not sure what I’ve learned. I still think How to Read a Book is wrong to insist every book have a clearly defined Unity.
If a book isn’t easy to summarize that’s useful information, in addition to whether or not the book was useful.
Having a clearly defined Unity seems like one way a book can be good/valuable. Good opening and closing paragraphs may be an indicator of Unity. Perhaps it’s useful to ask “What other ways can a book be valuable, than Unity” so its easier to tell what books are worth reading, that don’t have Unity.
Long:
I’m currently pondering how much you can get out of this, and specifically if it’s fair to reject a work because it failed pre-reading.
This might vary by genre.
should be help to a different standard
held, or held to a different standard of help
What standards things should be held to is a normative. It certainly makes sense to evaluate books differently based on this—writing with clarity makes it easier for the reader to get more out of it faster. Rather than being condensed into a single number score with a lot of other factors (4/5 stars, etc.) this can be a useful piece of information for recommendations (and reviews) to mention.
“I had to read this book twice because statements should have been in a different order at the beginning and end of chapters to indicate what the topic was/why it was important/why I should care”
is very different from:
“This book is filled with information, presented clearly and well. After you read it the first few times you learn from it each time, so you should re-read the book a few times to catch the things that use the knowledge you’ve obtained and build on it more, so you can learn everything this book has to teach.”
Maybe my scattered opening and closing paragraphs should cause you to downgrade your assessment of these post (although if you could keep in mind what I’m capable of when I’m prioritizing idea transmission, that would be cool).
this post
I can separate comments relating to textual minutiae (this instead of these, held instead of help) from comments on content.
I’ll look like a real ass here if I don’t have a summary, but I’m still not sure what I’ve learned. I still think How to Read a Book is wrong to insist every book have a clearly defined Unity.
If a book isn’t easy to summarize that’s useful information, in addition to whether or not the book was useful.
Having a clearly defined Unity seems like one way a book can be good/valuable. (Good opening and closing paragraphs might naturally arise from or be easier to do if there’s a Unity.) Perhaps it’s useful to ask “What other ways can a book be valuable, which are independent of Unity, or run counter to it?” so one can come up with ways of making reading those kinds of books easier/more valuable (or just coming up with better ways of pre or post reading).
I’ve spent longer writing this and skimming the chapter than it would have taken to read it deeply, but that’s okay because it was a better use of my time.
Or how to get better schemes for skimming effectively, so there’s more learning per unit of time.
TL:DR (edited):
If a book isn’t easy to summarize that’s useful information, in addition to whether or not the book was useful.
Having a clearly defined Unity seems like one way a book can be good/valuable. Good opening and closing paragraphs may be an indicator of Unity. Perhaps it’s useful to ask “What other ways can a book be valuable, than Unity” so its easier to tell what books are worth reading, that don’t have Unity.
Long:
This might vary by genre.
held, or held to a different standard of help
What standards things should be held to is a normative. It certainly makes sense to evaluate books differently based on this—writing with clarity makes it easier for the reader to get more out of it faster. Rather than being condensed into a single number score with a lot of other factors (4/5 stars, etc.) this can be a useful piece of information for recommendations (and reviews) to mention.
“I had to read this book twice because statements should have been in a different order at the beginning and end of chapters to indicate what the topic was/why it was important/why I should care”
is very different from:
“This book is filled with information, presented clearly and well. After you read it the first few times you learn from it each time, so you should re-read the book a few times to catch the things that use the knowledge you’ve obtained and build on it more, so you can learn everything this book has to teach.”
this post
I can separate comments relating to textual minutiae (this instead of these, held instead of help) from comments on content.
If a book isn’t easy to summarize that’s useful information, in addition to whether or not the book was useful.
Having a clearly defined Unity seems like one way a book can be good/valuable. (Good opening and closing paragraphs might naturally arise from or be easier to do if there’s a Unity.) Perhaps it’s useful to ask “What other ways can a book be valuable, which are independent of Unity, or run counter to it?” so one can come up with ways of making reading those kinds of books easier/more valuable (or just coming up with better ways of pre or post reading).
Or how to get better schemes for skimming effectively, so there’s more learning per unit of time.