3 ms·

I see the article advocates for quantity over quality, superficial skimming over deep analysis, and quitting when things become uncomfortable. I strongly disagr

I see the article advocates for quantity over quality, superficial skimming over deep analysis, and quitting when things become uncomfortable. I strongly disagree with this stance. I believe that instead of reading many books, you should read few books very well (it's a saying by a classic); and that high quality books are usually not easy, you need to put in some effort - generally, things that are worth it don't come easy. I also don't understand the fetish for reading "many" books. What is your goal? Do you want to be a better human being, deepen your understanding of the human condition, get a taste of the best this art form has to offer? Or do you just want to kill time or impress others with the quantity of books read?

falcolas 4y ago
Why not all 5? Seems like a reasonable way to pass time.
larve 4y ago
Ironically, that's exactly the points brought up... later down the article.
TrapLord_Rhodo 4y ago
The article addresses all of your concerns. > "How long did it take you to read that book?" - "57 years". It's a humble brag, but an interesting point. Once you've gained the knowledge of 57 years of reading books you can skim parts you already 'know'. Also, there are plain and simply bad books out there. You've only got so much time to "deepen your understanding of the human condition" as you put it, so why let the author waste it. >I also don't understand the fetish for reading "many" books. What is your goal? Knowledge
- Tomis02 4y ago
  I suspect your point and my point did not intersect. He's advocating for high throughput ingestion of books, exiting the process as early as possible. My point is that you should select a small number of books that are fundamental or iconic to humanity (or at least the civilisation or country you're part of) and read those very well, rather than the latest New York Times best seller. From the article: "the important thing is to be ruthless with the books that are not good". Well, the criteria for what's good is quite fuzzy, so I can only suspect the author is implying "not good" means "I don't like it". Sticking to your comfort zone has pros and cons. > Knowledge The genre I had in mind was fiction. In the case of knowledge in scientific fields, this is generally distilled in academia and scientific papers. With books not being peer-reviewed, you'd often need to follow up their claims with actual verification work. The author of the article doesn't strike me as a person that would go to such lengths. Anyway, that's just me.
zen_of_prog 4y ago
For context, Tyler Cowen, the person quoted, would like to be an "information trillionaire". He consumes a lot of information and gives good interviews with people who specialize in a wide variety of subjects. He's able to delve deep into many topics as well. I agree with you though, I think some people fall into the trap of focusing on breadth and assuming that depth is inefficient or time wasted.

falcolas 4y ago

Why not all 5? Seems like a reasonable way to pass time.

larve 4y ago

Ironically, that's exactly the points brought up... later down the article.

TrapLord_Rhodo 4y ago

The article addresses all of your concerns. > "How long did it take you to read that book?" - "57 years". It's a humble brag, but an interesting point. Once you've gained the knowledge of 57 years of reading books you can skim parts you already 'know'. Also, there are plain and simply bad books out there. You've only got so much time to "deepen your understanding of the human condition" as you put it, so why let the author waste it. >I also don't understand the fetish for reading "many" books. What is your goal? Knowledge

Tomis02 4y ago
I suspect your point and my point did not intersect. He's advocating for high throughput ingestion of books, exiting the process as early as possible. My point is that you should select a small number of books that are fundamental or iconic to humanity (or at least the civilisation or country you're part of) and read those very well, rather than the latest New York Times best seller. From the article: "the important thing is to be ruthless with the books that are not good". Well, the criteria for what's good is quite fuzzy, so I can only suspect the author is implying "not good" means "I don't like it". Sticking to your comfort zone has pros and cons. > Knowledge The genre I had in mind was fiction. In the case of knowledge in scientific fields, this is generally distilled in academia and scientific papers. With books not being peer-reviewed, you'd often need to follow up their claims with actual verification work. The author of the article doesn't strike me as a person that would go to such lengths. Anyway, that's just me.

zen_of_prog 4y ago

For context, Tyler Cowen, the person quoted, would like to be an "information trillionaire". He consumes a lot of information and gives good interviews with people who specialize in a wide variety of subjects. He's able to delve deep into many topics as well. I agree with you though, I think some people fall into the trap of focusing on breadth and assuming that depth is inefficient or time wasted.