3 ms·

> I've been considering skimming through the whole things to get kind of a big picture of what the thing is and where I'm going and then going back a second tim

> I've been considering skimming through the whole things to get kind of a big picture of what the thing is and where I'm going and then going back a second time to catch then the details and experiment. This is what they recommend in "How to Read a Book". First one is called "inspectional reading" and can be anything from a fifteen minute pre-reading to decide if it's the correct book to read, to a read-through without stopping to look things up, but make notes (especially of questions). Second one is called analytical reading, and is much more focused on asking oneself questions about the book and how it covers it's topic. Very active reading. I've often found it is helpful to go in the order they recommend, as you can often get all you need out of a book with an inspectional superficial reading. Sometimes you can eliminate a book via the pre-reading, but the ones that are valuable enough to justify an analytical reading are well worth it. In particular, I class books with questions or exercises very highly, as I retain much more information when I have to work through problems.

mesaframe 7y ago
I found that book quite superficial and superfluous. Content of few pages stretched out to a book.
- stuxnet79 7y ago
  Ha! I'm glad I'm not alone. I tried to take an interest in it as well but found the writing style to be extremely tedious and verbose. It's amazing that a book that professes to show you 'how to read' would be so poorly written and such a slog to get through. I'm only half-way through it and I'm not sure that I'll ever complete it. The content is good and interesting, but there's far too many words used to communicate what I think are concise, actionable ideas.
- npsimons 7y ago
  > I found that book quite superficial and superfluous. Content of few pages stretched out to a book. Perhaps you need to do more than a superficial reading, as they suggest. In seriousness, I found it very good and deep. Perhaps I just was lacking in my education, and you may have had learned the lessons they sought to impart before you read it. To each their own.

mesaframe 7y ago

I found that book quite superficial and superfluous. Content of few pages stretched out to a book.

stuxnet79 7y ago
Ha! I'm glad I'm not alone. I tried to take an interest in it as well but found the writing style to be extremely tedious and verbose. It's amazing that a book that professes to show you 'how to read' would be so poorly written and such a slog to get through. I'm only half-way through it and I'm not sure that I'll ever complete it. The content is good and interesting, but there's far too many words used to communicate what I think are concise, actionable ideas.
npsimons 7y ago
> I found that book quite superficial and superfluous. Content of few pages stretched out to a book. Perhaps you need to do more than a superficial reading, as they suggest. In seriousness, I found it very good and deep. Perhaps I just was lacking in my education, and you may have had learned the lessons they sought to impart before you read it. To each their own.