While I am of mixed opinion on the article, the one part that really stands out for me is his insistence of the necessity of long, difficult texts. I am one of

While I am of mixed opinion on the article, the one part that really stands out for me is his insistence of the necessity of long, difficult texts. I am one of the people that seldom reads a book these days. It's not that I find it too challenging, or too long. I certainly read fast enough, and my background is sufficiently wide. However, I do find it far too repetitive and rife with personal opinion that does not aid my quest for more knowledge. Why would I read a book about a programming language when there is a set of APIs, tutorials, and articles that can convey the information in 1/10th the time? Why should I read a dozen chapters about the history leading to a new mathematical concept when I can just quickly read the research paper about that specific concept? Why do I have to read a hundred asides about what the author does on his days off, how he loves his wife and his dog, of what sort of stupid questions his students asked of him? I'm just here for information, and unfortunately books are rarely the most ideal way of getting it. Not to say that all books are bad, and should be deprecated as a medium. I have, and will always find good books enjoyable. However, to insist that they are an irreplaceable feature of the quest for knowledge is ignoring the reality of how the quest for knowledge has changed. In the end it's not about long, difficult texts; just difficult texts will often suffice.