5 ms·
> But that mistakes what a book is for. A book is a tool. It’s a machine for thinking. Best quote in the article. Taking the time to read, absorb and apply a b
by carlossouza 3y ago
> But that mistakes what a book is for. A book is a tool. It’s a machine for thinking.
Best quote in the article. Taking the time to read, absorb and apply a book changes us in a way no summary or audiobook could ever change.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ilrwbwrkhv 3y agoAbsolutely. That's why people who use blinkist and stuff are doing it wrong. For a book to be useful it needs to work on you, you have to let yourself marinate in it. The time spent is in itself the biggest part of a book being useful. Just plucking the main ideas by themselves into bullet points do nothing.
- evross 3y agoBlinkist and skimming a book have their place for getting some of the key points, it's hard to find the time to read all useful books. But I agree that to really get the most out of a book, reading cover to cover is likely most immersive, impactful, maybe followed by listening to the auduibook from start to finish.
- ilrwbwrkhv 3y agoI think this is another wrong idea. You can never read all useful books. The whole idea of "all" useful books is faulty. You should read a book you really like and immerse yourself in it. The only time I think it's close to what you are suggesting is if you're prepping for a test.
- makeitdouble 3y agoI wasn't expect a "audiobooks aren't real books" argument coming in. What's your beef against "reading" in audio format ?
- bdjsiqoocwk 3y agoHe's not saying they're not real books, he's saying they have a different effect.
- makeitdouble 3y agoI saw that as a point worth digging into. If we push it to the deep end, reading a printout of an archived book or the version that has been past down in the family and is the last physical reminder of grandpa who we never saw alive won't have the same effect. But we're not talking about content or ideas anymore.
- serial_dev 3y agoWhile I'm certainly not making the argument that "audiobooks aren't real books" (and I think nobody did), it's naive to think that audiobooks are in every way the same or better than reading it yourself, in the end it's always about different trade offs. Listening to audiobooks is reading the book in someone else's pace. Reading the book on your own, you are reading at your own pace. You can look up from your book and reflect on what you read, think about how this new information explains things you observed in the past, think about how it could be used in the future. You didn't get something, you just read it again. You realized you didn't get things in the last two pages, you just go back two pages. A sentence is so deep, you need to walk around and think about things for ten minutes? You just stand up and do it. (I know you can do the same with audiobooks but it's more inconvenient) Listening to an audiobook and following someone else's pace also has its advantages (remember different tradeoffs), for example if you are easily distracted, the audiobook continuously playing can help you refocus and read through the book faster, not to mention being able to "read" while in motion, driving, cycling, working out.
- furyofantares 3y ago> I know you can do the same with audiobooks but it's more inconvenient I don't find it inconvenient. I also don't follow the logic about it being someone else's pace. I pick playback speed depending on both the content and the performance.
- dbtc 3y agoI disagree somewhat - a book can also be (or at least contain) a work of art; a consciousness-altering, mind-expanding, experience-inducing thing.