3 ms·
This comment is the exact embodiment of what the article calls the 'culling', and which it advocates is the wrong way to approach the issue. Plus, he wasn't sa
by roel_v 16y ago
This comment is the exact embodiment of what the article calls the 'culling', and which it advocates is the wrong way to approach the issue.
Plus, he wasn't saying one should actually skip those books, he was just making the point of how many books there are, and how few of them one can read, even with a lot of devotion.
- bambax 16y ago"he"'s a she: name's Linda. The point I am making is that it doesn't matter "how many books there are", it only matters how many GOOD books there are. I think a way to know which books are good before you've read them, is to rely on the "wisdom of the ages"; you may have a better approach (your friends tastes, Amazon recommendations, whatever) but it doesn't change the fact that most books are not worth reading and one should only strive to read the books that are.
- billybob 16y agoAlthough I would agree that "most books are not worth reading," some might disagree. But the fact remains that one has very limited time. So a more universal way to put it would be "you have to prioritize somehow." Ratings and "classic" status are two possible ways.