3 ms·
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 y
by 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 agoI 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.