How to Read a Book, Revised and Updated Edition

A revised edition of a classic. For awhile I avoided this book out of juvenile assumption that it was for people who were poor readers, quite unlike my own esteemed self. Instead, I found it stimulating as I consider the education of the second half of my life. Adler tackles the idea that reading for understanding is far more than reading for information. I was fascinated by his assertion that any book I read for understanding will necessarily be one "over my head." His part is to assist readers to know how to get more out of these kinds of books. Of course, he discusses being an active reader. His discussion of understanding a book within the context of other books in its family or theme articulated something I've felt vaguely. For a show more critique, I was particularly interested to read Adler's statement that the original edition was almost a completely different book. This kind of statement invites testing, doesn't it? So I purchased the original edition, and discovered that in some ways, I like the old edition better. In the revision at times, it seemed as though Adler was repeating himself, or giving minor variations on a theme. The original kept to the main idea of developing active readers. If I were giving the book to a teenager, I'd track down the original, because I think the longer version is more likely to be overwhelming or too much of a stretch for the very audience that Adler wishes to influence. A strong adult reader will probably enjoy the revised edition better, simply because he discusses more "advanced" reading techniques. In any case, I think this is an essential book. I am particularly interested in the implications for this book as it relates to helping readers become more active readers of the Bible. See also I Read It, But I Don't Get It. show less

Some books take no extra skills to read--all of their benefits are on the surface waiting for you. Others hide their treasures below the surface and you have to go after them like a deep sea diver, returning and returning again to appreciate their beauty and discover their meaning. Books like The Brothers Karamazov and City of God require extra literary skills to understand, but the effort is worth it.

If you've never had a good literature class, or if it's been a while since your last one, then you might consider reading Mortimer Adler's How to Read a Book. Adler begins with the best definition of reading I've ever come across:

Reading is "...the process whereby a mind, with nothing to operate on but the symbols of the readable matter, show more and with no help from outside, elevates itself by the power of its own operations. The mind passes from understanding less to understanding more. The skilled operations that cause this to happen are the various acts that constitute the art of reading."

I like to share that definition and break it down for my eighth grade students each year because it's easy to think of reading as just an alternative to television. The idea that reading elevates is important for them to understand. As Henry Fielding states in On Taste in Books, books are not merely for entertainment:

"This present age seems pretty well agreed in an opinion, that the utmost scope and end of reading is amusement only; and such, indeed, are now the fashionable books, that a reader can propose no more than mere entertainment, and it is sometimes very well for him if he finds even this, in his studies.

Letters, however, were surely intended for a much more noble and profitable purpose than this. Writers are not, I presume, to be considered as mere jack-puddings, whose business it is only to excite laughter...when no moral, no lesson, no instruction is conveyed to the reader, where the whole design of the composition is no more than to make us laugh, the writer comes very near to the character of a buffoon; and his admirers, if an old Latin proverb be true, deserve no great compliments to be paid to their wisdom."

Reading and writing are not only meant to elevate us intellectually, but spiritually as well. All of our skills and abilities are given to us by God so that we may know, love and serve Him; any other use of them is a waste of time and will detour us off the road to eternal joy. It does, however, take a conscious and deliberate act of the will to use our gifts in this way, and it often requires extra effort. Regarding reading, Adler puts it this way:

"To pass from understanding less to understanding more by your own intellectual effort in reading is something like pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. It certainly feels that way. It is a major exertion. Obviously, it is a more active kind of reading than you have done before....Obviously, too, the things that are usually regarded as more difficult to read, and hence as only for the better reader, are those that are more likely to deserve and demand this kind of reading."

For one interested in acquiring the skills to read difficult books, How to Read a Book is an essential resource. Not only does Adler explain how to read in general, but he also devotes individual chapters to reading specific kinds of literature, including how to read history, philosophy, science and mathematics. I've owned the book for fifteen years, and I still return to it again and again to improve my reading skills. I spent $10.95 on my copy of How to Read a Book but it is worth more than some of the college classes I took, which cost me considerably more. show less

I regret my disappointment with this book which has been recommended to me over and over again. Especially since its author was Mortimer Adler, tireless defender of the Great Books.



There is great and very useful practical advice in here. But it is buried in endless meandering essays. Adler makes a lot of sweeping and highly opinionated statements that only serve to undermine the practical advice. Some of his judgments are entirely befuddling. His rather dismissive view of the field of history was, for example, as far as I am familiar the history of historiography, outdated even in the period in which he first wrote this book. At one point, I even found him to have an ironically very dogmatic view of the alleged dogmatic views of show more adherents of political and religious ideologies.



I probably would have gotten more out of this book's practical aspects if I had read it in an earlier stage of my life, but I am not sure if I would have had the patience to wade through its tedious repetition. I feel like the true meat of the book could have better been presented as a concise booklet.



On a positive note, I did very much like his pitch for his «The Great Ideas A Syntopicon of Great Books of the Western World», the topical index to his Great Books of the Western World collection. show less

Who This Book is (not) For

It focuses mainly on reading expositional, rather than imaginative material. It was written in 1940, and revised in 1972, though it looks and feels more like a 40s book.

I read it in the hope of becoming a more analytical reader who could go on to write more coherent, concise, and original reviews. It didn’t help. A much more relevant book is How to Read Literature Like a Professor, which I've reviewed HERE.

This may once have been a good book. Had I read it as an undergraduate, I may even have found bits of it slightly useful. As a middle-aged fiction reader in the 21st century, I found it infuriating, boring, and mostly irrelevant.

Types of Reading

There are four levels of reading:
1. Elementary (learning to show more decode the symbols).
2. Inspectional (time-limited skimming).
3. Analytical.
4. Syntopical (comparing and drawing conclusions).
I used Inspectional for most of the book - because my patience and interest were severely, and increasingly, limited.

It focuses mainly on analytical reading of non-fiction: knowing what sort of book it is, having an idea of the content and structure etc. Its own structure is very poor. For example, four rules of analytical reading are spread across two chapters, and only listed together at the end of the second. Then, in the next chapter, you discover rule five, and six… It turns out there are 15 (yes, 15!) rules of analytical reading. Enough to put me off reading altogether.

There are a couple of chapters devoted to fiction, but I didn’t find them helpful or insightful.

Example of Annoyances

“Most plays are not worth reading… because they are incomplete.”
Sweeping generalisation followed by a non-sequitur. I rarely read plays precisely because they were written for performance, and I can’t do that effectively in my head. It does not mean that most plays are not worth reading, though.

“An author uses most words as men ordinarily do in conversation.”
I nearly threw the book across the room, though that was probably an overreaction, born of my mounting dislike. Yes, I know it was written when it was more common to use male pronouns as generic ones, and to use “man” to mean “mankind/humankind”. But it was revised in 1972, and “men” grates far more than “man”: surely “people” would be more natural, even back then?

The Literary Canon (only one?!)

I don’t think the authors really know who their audience is - a fatal flaw in any writer/reader relationship. There are constant assumptions that the reader is familiar with the classical Western canon, from ancient civilisations, through to the start of the twentieth century: Homer’s Ulysses, though to Joyce’s Ulysses. If you’d read them in school (as the authors expect), you’d either have understood them and so have little need of this book, or not understood them, and have no intention of reading this book.

This is reflected in the impressive and somewhat daunting reading list. It explicitly includes only Western works because:
1. The authors admit they know very little about Indian, Chinese, Japanese and other literary traditions. (They could have consulted someone else.)
2. Apparently, there is not a single tradition in Eastern literature, as there is in Western. (I’m not sure I understand the truth or untruth of that.)
3. It’s better to really know your own culture’s canon before branching out to others. (I don’t agree, but it is a valid and somewhat interesting opinion.)

Exercises

An appendix has a lot of comprehension exercises (I’m not sure what term is used outside the UK). I didn’t do any of them. I’d rather read a good book.

If you want to read a book, I suggest you read a book.
But probably not this one.
If you want exercises, make it a large, heavy one! show less

Mortimer Adler was Editor-in-Chief of the Great Books series, and a proponent of a liberal education in the Western tradition. This work is in the same vein, but it is what Adler refers to as a "practical" book. In the introduction he notes the fun that was made of his book title, with a spoof How to Read Two Books written shortly after by Erasmus G. Addlepate. As I started reading the book, I felt like I was being taught by an "old school" teacher who had to go through the basics before getting to the point some time later in life. But therein lies the charm of the work - by the end, I felt I had been reading [a:John Stuart Mill|57651|John Stuart Mill|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1208804881p2/57651.jpg]'s [b:On show more Liberty|385228|On Liberty|John Stuart Mill|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1459346459s/385228.jpg|2387235] - all the ideas were lining up, my liberal education had been delivered correctly, and I understood why I do what I do. What struck me most is that the four stages of reading, from elementary to syntopical, lead one to being able to organise a literature review. If ever there was a book that teaches how to systematically, and practicably, go about conducting a literature review, this is it. The process seems almost absurd when spelt out - much like [a:Aristotle|2192|Aristotle|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1390143800p2/2192.jpg]'s [b:Poetics|13270|Poetics|Aristotle|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1348161995s/13270.jpg|2301058] - it reads like:

1. Select two eggs. 2. Suck.

But that would be so wrong! There is so much here, I am pleased it was my first read for the year, and I intend to add some of the techniques to my daily journalling practice (or maybe even keep a separate book journal). The two appendices are helpful. The first provides an updated list of the Great Books of the Western World (most of which are available online free these days). The second provides a series of tests on each of the levels of reading. This was designed to be "exemplary" but it was also a bit of fun, with some interesting text on Mill, Newton, Dante, et al. For anyone interested in classic works, this book is a useful guide to the art of reading, but also desktop research. One interesting change to my reading habits has resulted. Adler states that part of the fun of owning a book is that you can write in the margins. For decades I have cringed at the thought of doing this - my books are all catalogued and covered - but in Adler's book, I took out my sharpened pencil and begin to make margin notes. I suppose it is fine if I do this in pencil. And it will certainly make it easier to relocate quotes, instead of using my typically ineffective method of remembering page numbers for important quotes. I am a devotee to the Great Books cause. I was pleased to note that Adler writes that he has limited knowledge of the great books of the eastern world, and this was his main reason for not introducing "Eastern" works (a little Orientalism goes a long way), but given the work was written in 1940 and then revised in the 1970s, it was ahead of its time. There is something about the liberal democratic ideal and reading that Adler points to time and again, and while my own ideals have been systematically destroyed through practice, Adler paints an honourable picture of liberalism as it is rarely practised these days. This is not an easy book, and for some it might be off-putting, but for me, I learnt more in this volume than I have in the last five years. show less

Thought I was in for a treat.

First let me say that I did learn some terminology I didn't know:
Abeccedarian Ignorance - being illiterate
Doctoral Ignorance - one who misreads
Syntopical Reading - comparative reading (of a number of books on one specific subject)

I did find the sections on Syntopical Reading more compelling to me because I don't think I've done enough of this type of reading (years ago in school) and wanted to know more. Now when I read one book I am almost always thinking of similar characters, plots, ideas, I read in other books.

But...I think that what Adler and Van Doren had in mind by syntopical reading is reading mainly non-fiction books or sections of books to glean very specific information on one topic. To me show more this seems to be a more science or research based reading. The syntopical reader compares the info (s)he has understood to determine if it addresses a pre-determined question or problem within the topic positively, negatively or neither.

Will check out other sources of information of syntopical reading and comparative reading to learn more.

While I did gain some knowledge, in general I found the book pretentious, over-analytical, bossy, unfriendly and arrogant. I believe this book would discourage and bore most folks interesting in learning about upping their reading skills. show less

Honestly, this whole book is a 2.5 stars for me. Not quite a 3-star, but also not as low as a 2-star.

The book is certainly a product of its time, and it goes into MASSIVE detail about how one should read a book. But the way it presents the concepts that it wants to show are just... too much. This book can be condensed to approximately 200 pages at most.

For those who are struggling with reading or not understanding many of the books they pick up - whether because English is a second/third language, or because they have difficulty parsing classic books - this book will be invaluable in helping you try to understand hard-to-read books. Unfortunately for me, I've been an avid reader since I was a kid, and I remember picking up a condensed show more version of this book meant for children back in middle school. So a lot of the lessons in this book were familiar to me.

Here, let me save you $30 and just tell you what the contents are:

1) Read the book's title, blurb, skim a Wikipedia article about the book, read the Goodreads/Amazon description, and maybe read some reviews about the book. For fiction, skip reviews that give spoilers. Read a few 4-5 star reviews and a few 1-star reviews to get an idea of what you're getting into.

2) Read the prefaces, acknowledgements, foreword, and introduction segments, and skim the Table of Contents to see what the contents of the book are. If you're reading a nonfiction book, feel free to skim chapters that seem interesting to you.

3) Be actively reading! Skim if you want, but otherwise, don't be afraid to reread passages that don't make sense, and mark them down via a post-it note for physical books or highlight tool in your e-reader of choice.

4) Every few chapters, take a small break and review what you learned in your mind. What were your biggest takeaways? Did it make sense? Would you have to reread it? Were there any themes you're starting to see? Does it connect with previous chapters?

5) Once you get to the end of the book, take a moment to reflect on it as a whole. If you took any notes, reevaluate with them. If you left post-it notes to reread segments, reread them. After you are sure you got everything you wanted from the book, review it as a whole. You don't have to leave an actual review on Goodreads/Amazon or anywhere else. Instead, just think about what you learned and read, to help the lessons stick with you.

There you go. BOOM. Active reading. You basically just did what the book suggested, but it was condensed down to five points. Obviously, there are other things that you could do that the book suggests. Mr. Adler suggests not researching words or phrases till after you've thoroughly read the book, but I argue that keeping a thesaurus, dictionary, and Wikipedia open to pause and look up words or phrases is actually a good thing to keep you from misunderstanding what the Author is trying to say.

All in all, this book is a slog that you might end up skipping major sections of. The information is very good, but the writing style is dry, and some chapters don't really feel connected to the whole (early chapters cover the history of reading in America, which I found outdated). If you don't mind reading something that goes extremely in-depth to engaging a book, have at it. If you feel confident that you are a decent reader but just want to cover a condensed version of the book, then read what I wrote above or find several guides that succinctly go over the information. show less