How to Read a Book {original}

The original How to Read a Book is substantially different from the revisions. In fact, the original is a superior work, and worth seeking out. The revision seems more repetitive and dry, and the original is much more engaging.

This is the most overrated book I've read in a while. People rate it a "5/5", it's really a 2-3/5. It might be worthwhile if you don't know how to "read" well (as in, asking questions while reading, analyzing the book, comparing the viewpoints of multiple books), but if you're a reasonable human being, you already know this, and don't require hundreds of pages of needlessly verbose and condescending prose to explain it.

The authors get extra points for creating arbitrary and essentially worthless distinctions of multiple times, then indexing each of these on independent 4-part scales. This lets them say amazing things about reading the fourth type of book at the third level leads to the fourth point, etc.

Skip. There should be a show more worthwhile book about this topic, but this isn't it. show less

Adler's method is not how I read now, but it was a helpful start that taught me how to go beyond, "just reading," and learn to view texts as tools.

Estou me sentindo uma pilantra por ter pago 22 reais em uma edição rara de um livro cujo valor estipulado normalmente varia entre 150 e 250 reais.

P.S. Esse Charles Van Doren é aquele mesmo do Ralph Fiennes em Quiz Show? Rá! Tá bom, não estou mais me sentindo tão pilantra.

From the back of the book: "It is the only self-improvement book I have ever read that did not make me want to go out and start improving things by assassinating the author."

reading and accessing information

12/12/21