> I recently went on an analogue book binge, and discovered something I'd not previously noticed. Possibly for commercial reasons, books tend to frequently be m

> I recently went on an analogue book binge, and discovered something I'd not previously noticed. Possibly for commercial reasons, books tend to frequently be much longer than they need to be, (coincidentally) they're often a minimum of 200-250 pages. Books that could easily have their content conveyed in 25 or 50 pages will be padded to 200. And not just literary trash (of which there's a lot) but books that are highly recommended reading. I might not be a huge fan of the verbosity of Ulysses or A Song of Ice and Fire for that matter, but I also don't believe that reading is or should be an exercise in data throughput optimization, whether in fiction or non-fiction. In fiction you set a tone, paint a picture, fill out characters, motivations, parallell arcs, etc, not to mention just appreciating the flow of prose. In non-fiction you can explain things from various perspectives, repeat things which is crucial to learning, as well as expand something beyond the topic itself, which can make it easier to retain it when you have something already familiar to anchor it to. > Another big disadvantage of books is you receive exactly 1 perspective. Whereas if you actively research a domain with web access, you can cross reference and absorb a variety of contrasting (/conflicting) sources, and by smashing the ideas together enough, you can figure out which arguments are strongest. It's okay to read multiple books.