Article sets itself up a rebuttal against another post. The other post argues you shouldn't read books because they are too long and mostly filler. This articl

Article sets itself up a rebuttal against another post. The other post argues you shouldn't read books because they are too long and mostly filler. This article then suggests the classics themselves are a demonstration that disproves that anti book sentiment. Personally, I disagree with both points of view, I think reading books is valuable, but I don't think "the classics" are a good argument why. For me, reading is good because it is _both_ enjoyable and informative. The antibook argument suggests you read the most information dense material you can, but like, that's not going to stick because it's boring and minds work on narrative / spaced repetition. Likewise, many folks find the classics boring, so they aren't a good example of why reading is good either. The best argument for why reading books is good is to help someone find a book they like! Once you get started reading, you'll likely do more of it and learn a lot more than (a) just reading blogs and (b) trudging through classics that aren't appealing to you (although there are very like classics you will like)