Good Book SummariesA good book summary
What's so bad about just reading book summaries?
I' ve had a chat with a good guy who enjoys reading book summaries. He is not a big readers, but he still wants the idea of big textbooks, so he avoids to study the summaries of many textbooks to understand the core of their key notions.
I' m still a reader of book summaries or book review, but I still have many long readings, often on particular subjects. But I will never be able to study most textbooks on most subjects. So if your aim for literacy is to become more informed, does my friend's policy of holding on to the summaries really make more sense? No.
What's the point of studying? The first two are probably science or amusement. A part of my motivations for my readings certainly come from the latter. However, I often try to choose those that I think are important. I could go for soft literature or give up literacy in favour of films, TV or less demanding mediums if my only aim was to have fun.
It is important to me to read for my own sake. However, if that is the case, just read the summaries does not seem like a poor notion. Like most things, a book has an uneven distribution of values and thoughts. An abstract gives the major hypothesis and the necessary proofs without going into so many details. Probably on the base of per minute suggestions, summaries of full accounts will prevail.
No one will ever even be able to see a small part of all of them, maybe not even a considerable proportion of really great ones. There is no rapid decrease in the minimal value of an additional book. When a higher value can be achieved by simply rereading a book than a complete book, it makes more and more sense to reread summaries.
I think the intrinsic coherence of this book harvesting approach makes good business sense. ÿ Indeed, they often use the opposite of harsh textbooks severalfold. Let us look at the eminent bibliographer Tyler Cowen, who writes about his book literacy strategy: "1 "1) Directly review a classical work by identifying important issues and uncertainties but not allowing yourself to be prevented from doing so.
When the same materials decrease, it must be less effective to read a book twice than to read it once or just read a review. What is incorrect in the read of summaries? So, I have a few ideas about why my friend's approach seems to make a great deal of sense at first sight, but why it is relatively unexploited among those who seem to be very concerned about getting the wisdom from harsh editorial.
I have the first hypothesis that the value of a book depends not only on its idea, which of course can often be derived from a recapitulation, but also on the fact that it is a challenging spiritual exercise that demands concentration and at the same time promotes deep thought. Under these circumstances, to read a book is more than just the idea you get from it.
The most important thing when reading the book is to think about its contents. A really long, good book on a subject will therefore be much longer to think about and therefore have a much greater effect than a brief abstract or perhaps even many brief summaries. Surely part of the value of a book must be in the particular information it conveys?
It would certainly make many other ways of studying seem in vain if this would be the case. This is a good way to gain a comparative edge if you have studied the works in detail, as it is customary at the executive end. To know a few things on a lower plane could compensate for a larger, broader summarizing wisdom, as one can focus on discussions and areas of intellect that profit from this deep understanding.
However, the most powerful argument against this notion is that many insatiable long-term reader widely diversifies the genre and subject matter. Therefore, it seems contradictory to advocate longer periods of study because of the return to specialisation and then start studying all kinds of work. My Hansenian view is that the most obvious cause for this deviation is that long, tough writing is something that few would do ( or enjoy).
Therefore, you can be signaling your scholarship by reading lots of profound, hard accounts, even if you end up merely offering volumes of thoughts. Would it be better to have long and low or broad and broad readings? Would it be better to concentrate your study hours on longer study times, or should you throw a bigger net and spend more of your study hours on book summaries and review?
I am willing to go on with my present way of studying, if only for the first occasion I said I like to read full textbooks because I find them interesting. However, I am certainly open to the notion that I should push my customs towards more summaries and less profundity if that proves to be the more effective one.