3 ms·

I simply don't recognize the article's analysis of why we read. I read (voraciously) during my 'downtime': in bed before sleeping, sitting on the toilet, during

I simply don't recognize the article's analysis of why we read. I read (voraciously) during my 'downtime': in bed before sleeping, sitting on the toilet, during lunchbreaks. Often the times that a lot of people are game-playing/watching youtube/scrolling FB. I'm not aspiring to "know everything" or to appear to be an "intelligent person". I think reading a lot is just a habit. It may be that I'd be better off reading less, and having more of my own thoughts. But I find it enjoyable, and after I've read a book I generally feel like it was a net gain, and not a time-suck (like the aimless surfing I can sometimes be diverted into). In any case I certainly don't identify with any need to read a few carefully curated books to "be shaped – deeply shaped in [my] capacity to live and die well". I read history, popular nature books, novels, classics, travel - so there's no pattern or attempt to 'better' myself. It's just fun and passes the time better than sitting on the john and scrolling a meaningless feed.

enkid 6y ago
I'm not a big fan of this article, but I don't think it's advocating reading less. Rather, it advocates rereading a few core works more. There's something to be said for knowing a few things well instead of trying to know everything, but I also think getting exposed to new ideas is important.
- null_object 6y ago
  I think my main disagreement with the entire tenor of the article, is that it treats reading as just one more aspect of the modern obsession of 'self-improvement', whereas I read because it's fun. This doesn't mean that I never re-read a book - last year I re-read War & Peace, for instance. But I didn't do it to somehow deepen my knowledge of a 'core work' I read it again primarily because it's an immensely enjoyable narrative. I also read a book about Ants purely for the fun of it. Now I can barely remember anything other than a couple of details about soldier ants that are also suicide bombers (when defeat appears inevitable, they tighten a muscle in their abdomen that causes their thorax to burst, and spray all the attackers around them with acid) and that a whole nest of the smallest known ants would fit inside a single head of the largest known species. These two facts that I recall now can hardly count as 'deeper knowledge' or anything pretentious like that. But reading the book gave me a much greater appreciation of natural phenomena around me, and now when I see an ant's nest in the forest, I know more about what happens inside, I can discuss it with my kids and I'm more engaged and aware of my environment. But that's not why I read the book.
  - enkid 6y ago
    I totally agree. I like rereading Terry Pratchett books because I enjoy them. I reread philosophy books because I want to remember the arguments and get a new perspective on the work based on new experience. I read books about physics, biology, history, psychology and other subjects to expose myself to new ideas and try to expand my thinking. I think there's a ideal mean here that rereads some and reads new books some.
  - InitialLastName 6y ago
    Not only could can you appreciate the natural phenomena more, but you just shared that appreciation with tens (hundreds? thousands? no idea what the scale of comment viewings is for HN) of other people who can now appreciate the fact and share it with their own children and others around them.
billiam 6y ago
I would suggest that what you say is an excellent illustration of something implied by the OP: we're not reading the way that our learned ancestors did, we're processing words. Books mean everything to me, but I can't really quote much if at all from the most recent or even cherished ones. I drive my wife crazy as I add bookshelves to our living room, arguing that I need to have physical books to refer to or I'll forget what I have read entirely. She reads as many books as I do but gets them from the library. But how often do I pick up Herodotus or Knausgaard from the shelf? Not often.
closeparen 6y ago
> and having more of my own thoughts The thoughts you have are shaped by the stimulus from your environment. Reading more and better books is a way to have more and better thoughts; it's not a zero sum game.

enkid 6y ago

I'm not a big fan of this article, but I don't think it's advocating reading less. Rather, it advocates rereading a few core works more. There's something to be said for knowing a few things well instead of trying to know everything, but I also think getting exposed to new ideas is important.

null_object 6y ago
I think my main disagreement with the entire tenor of the article, is that it treats reading as just one more aspect of the modern obsession of 'self-improvement', whereas I read because it's fun. This doesn't mean that I never re-read a book - last year I re-read War & Peace, for instance. But I didn't do it to somehow deepen my knowledge of a 'core work' I read it again primarily because it's an immensely enjoyable narrative. I also read a book about Ants purely for the fun of it. Now I can barely remember anything other than a couple of details about soldier ants that are also suicide bombers (when defeat appears inevitable, they tighten a muscle in their abdomen that causes their thorax to burst, and spray all the attackers around them with acid) and that a whole nest of the smallest known ants would fit inside a single head of the largest known species. These two facts that I recall now can hardly count as 'deeper knowledge' or anything pretentious like that. But reading the book gave me a much greater appreciation of natural phenomena around me, and now when I see an ant's nest in the forest, I know more about what happens inside, I can discuss it with my kids and I'm more engaged and aware of my environment. But that's not why I read the book.
- enkid 6y ago
  I totally agree. I like rereading Terry Pratchett books because I enjoy them. I reread philosophy books because I want to remember the arguments and get a new perspective on the work based on new experience. I read books about physics, biology, history, psychology and other subjects to expose myself to new ideas and try to expand my thinking. I think there's a ideal mean here that rereads some and reads new books some.
- InitialLastName 6y ago
  Not only could can you appreciate the natural phenomena more, but you just shared that appreciation with tens (hundreds? thousands? no idea what the scale of comment viewings is for HN) of other people who can now appreciate the fact and share it with their own children and others around them.

billiam 6y ago

I would suggest that what you say is an excellent illustration of something implied by the OP: we're not reading the way that our learned ancestors did, we're processing words. Books mean everything to me, but I can't really quote much if at all from the most recent or even cherished ones. I drive my wife crazy as I add bookshelves to our living room, arguing that I need to have physical books to refer to or I'll forget what I have read entirely. She reads as many books as I do but gets them from the library. But how often do I pick up Herodotus or Knausgaard from the shelf? Not often.

closeparen 6y ago

> and having more of my own thoughts The thoughts you have are shaped by the stimulus from your environment. Reading more and better books is a way to have more and better thoughts; it's not a zero sum game.