Laura K (NC) - About How to Read a Book...

[LisaNY]

You mentioned that it was a loser for you. Can you share why?

 

(I've read through it about halfway, and I find it kind of boring. I much prefer WEM.)

 

It is one of the books used in Martin Cothran's Classical Rhetoric course. I am considering using this program.

[MIch elle]

Here's the link: http://www.oxfordtutorials.com/How%20to%20Read%20a%20Book%20Outline.htm

 

Another good free resource is Roman Reading (download the free ebook).

 

I thought it might help.

[LisaNY]

Here's the link: http://www.oxfordtutorials.com/How%20to%20Read%20a%20Book%20Outline.htm

 

Another good free resource is Roman Reading (download the free ebook).

 

I thought it might help.

 

Thanks, Michelle. I did not have those links. I do have How to Read How to Read a Book.

[Laura K (NC)]

We bought "How to Read How to Read a Book" also, but that didn't help much. It summarized a book that was not helpful.

 

For example, in the chapter, "X-Raying a Book," the first stage of analytical reading includes the following rules:

 

1. Classify the book acccording to the kind and subject matter.

2. State what the whole book is about with the utmost brevity.

3. Enumerate its major parts in their order and relation, and outline these parts as you have outlined the whole.

4. Define the problem or problems the author is trying to solve.

 

Let me break down the problems I see in this list. First of all, any book that one reads critically will be read and chosen for a reason. I am doing a paper right now on the Jansenists and Jesuits of France in the 18th century, so I have had to choose many books from the great university library we have here and then make notes for them, so I would think that Adler's book would be helpful. But right off the bat, it turns out that it is not. If I am choosing books for my paper, I would not just go to the stacks, pick out any book at random, and then try to figure out if it matches my topic. I went to the subject classifications in the online catalog, typed in the subjects I was interested in, and then found the books that way. I could tell by the title if the book would suit my purpose. To make sure it did I either checked it with the summary at Amazon or looked at the table of contents. I didn't have to "state what the book was about with the utmost brevity." That was already done for me in the title. I didn't have to enumerate the major parts. That was already done for me in the table of contents. I didn't have to reconstruct the author's main argument. The argument was often given in the extended title. Even if it was not, it could be gotten by reading the book, unless the book was too obscure, in which case Adler's book wouldn't help. That book only contributes to the problem: one obscure book must be read in addition to the another. It is so hypothetical and theoretical that it was not practical, and if it isn't practical or interesting, then what's the point except as a mental exercise? And I can think of many more worthy mental exercises.

 

Another more practical thing to do to find out the angle of the author, which is important to do on my paper on Jansenists and Jesuits. Adler seems to say that all that you can know about a book is inside that book, and one must use that book efficiently depending on how it will be used. But knowing the political or religious bent of the author, the issues and controversies that surrounded and inspired him, and the period in which he wrote are all very important and are more efficiently found in summaries that can be found at Wikipedia or Amazon. A contemporary Protestant writing about the Jansenists will put them on a pedestal, while a contemporary Catholic will regard their theology with suspicion as divisive. A modern Catholic will define a Jansenist in completely different terms because the label took on a different meaning. So I have three books on Jansenism, each with a different outlook. I didn't read the books to determine their outlooks. I chose them based on other recommendations and the year that they were published. When I do read the books I'll keep the authors' biases in mind and exploit those differences for my purposes. I haven't read Adler very carefully all the way through, but I don't think he takes any of this into account. I will be happy to be corrected on this, though!

 

I recently got a tip about IEW's Windows on the World, and after looking at it I think it's much more interesting and practical for literature. Most of IEW's stuff is for writing, but Windows on the World is for reading. It seems that it would be far better, if parents thought How to Read a Book was important, for them to to wade through Adler's book himself and summarize it for each of their children when they get to the age when such instruction would be helpful. I just didn't think it was helpful for my son to read and analyze it as part of his freshman literature course. Adler's advice for science and math books doesn't apply to reading all science and math. I just looked over his advice for reading books in the social sciences, and it just seems like he's summarizing his experiences with social science departments in universities, which may or may not correspond to the experiences of others in the same situations, and really has little to do with reading books, especially at the high school level.

 

There are too many words, and not enough practical advice. I wish I had done IEW Windows on the World this year instead.

[Maverick]

Laura, thank you so much for taking the time to write such a detailed critique! I have HTRAB on my shelf, along with WEM and several other books about literature, and I've been debating the value of using HTRAB next year as part of our lit study. I've read about half of it and I was feeling like I didn't want to make my kids read the whole thing--our time is so short and I think you summed it up very well in your last sentence. I appreciate how you related its value in your research process. I feel better about sticking with WEM and Invitation to the Classics for next year.

[LisaNY]

Thank you, Laura! I really appreciate your taking the time to give me your critique of the book. You made very helpful points.

 

As I said, I read about halfway through it, and didn't understand some of the high marks it gets.