5 ms·
I thought when I was younger I couldn't read big, difficult books and (since it never occurred to me that there might be people smarter than me) I concluded tha
by commandlinefan 7y ago
I thought when I was younger I couldn't read big, difficult books and (since it never occurred to me that there might be people smarter than me) I concluded that nobody could read big, difficult books. It was quite an epiphany when I actually really forced myself to get through one - and once I had pushed past that first barrier, it's gotten easier and easier to read really meaningful books.
- hogFeast 7y agoMost of these books are very poorly written. Smith's Wealth of Nations, as an example, is mostly very well-written and abysmally bad through the minority (Marx/Keynes probably the opposite). And meaning isn't really constant either, you read something and then come back to parts of it.
- commandlinefan 7y agoThat's a good point - when I think of big, difficult books, I think of Knuth, or SICP (or the bible)... the author's examples are more along the lines of philosophy.
- chasedehan 7y agoKeynes is known as being one of the best Economist writers of all time.
- hogFeast 7y agoFirst, no he isn't. Second, the book we are talking about (again) is a textbook (this view isn't remotely controversial btw - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_Theory_of_Employment,_Interest_and_Money#Observations_on_its_readability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_Theory_of_Employme...). Economic Consequences of Peace is very good, a lot of his stuff aimed at the general public (Persuasion/How to Pay for the War) is good...General Theory is not.