Comments on: How to read a (good) book in one hour.

Comments on: How to read a (good) book in one hour. http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/ Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:06:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: S. Schweizer http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/comment-page-1/#comment-704114 S. Schweizer Sat, 05 Feb 2011 02:02:55 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/#comment-704114 This is not the graduate school method. The graduate school method is: 0) Read the author's wikipedia page. 1) Look the book up on jstor. Pull some reviews from the NYRB and the like and read them. 2) Then, read some more articles from jstor and the like 3) Prepare three or four incisive comments. Venture two, and keep one or two in reserve if pressed. You're set. This is not the graduate school method. The graduate school method is:

0) Read the author’s wikipedia page.
1) Look the book up on jstor. Pull some reviews from the NYRB and the like and read them.
2) Then, read some more articles from jstor and the like
3) Prepare three or four incisive comments. Venture two, and keep one or two in reserve if pressed.

You’re set.

Report this comment

]]> By: Davis X. Machina http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/comment-page-1/#comment-704088 Davis X. Machina Thu, 03 Feb 2011 01:47:12 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/#comment-704088 Mortimer Adler was flogging something very like in <I>How to Read a Book</i>, seventy years ago. Good idea then, good idea now. Mortimer Adler was flogging something very like in How to Read a Book, seventy years ago. Good idea then, good idea now.

Report this comment

]]> By: Brian http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/comment-page-1/#comment-704079 Brian Wed, 02 Feb 2011 04:50:33 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/#comment-704079 You can also save time by tearing out the index and marking the parts that would go to form your lists. This is not advisable if you don't own the book, of course. You can also save time by tearing out the index and marking the parts that would go to form your lists. This is not advisable if you don’t own the book, of course.

Report this comment

]]> By: foo http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/comment-page-1/#comment-704065 foo Tue, 01 Feb 2011 21:29:45 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/#comment-704065 "read the TOC, the preface and forward" read the TOC, the preface and foreword “read the TOC, the preface and forward”

read the TOC, the preface and foreword

Report this comment

]]> By: On Reading Like a Hawk | The Lapland Chronicles http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/comment-page-1/#comment-704013 On Reading Like a Hawk | The Lapland Chronicles Sat, 29 Jan 2011 20:34:06 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/#comment-704013 [...] Update: Here is a related post by Chris Kelty: How to read a (good) book in one hour. [...] [...] Update: Here is a related post by Chris Kelty: How to read a (good) book in one hour. [...]

Report this comment

]]> By: Senses and Sounds http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/comment-page-1/#comment-634433 Senses and Sounds Sat, 26 Jun 2010 05:36:36 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/#comment-634433 [...] }); }How to read a (good) book in one hour.. The good Doctors at Savage Minds teach us how to skim like a pro. If you’ve ever had to [...] [...] }); }How to read a (good) book in one hour.. The good Doctors at Savage Minds teach us how to skim like a pro. If you’ve ever had to [...]

Report this comment

]]> By: Heynow http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/comment-page-1/#comment-630282 Heynow Sun, 18 Apr 2010 01:16:37 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/#comment-630282 So wait, you all are in a course together LOL does the professor know who you all leaving comments actually are? So wait, you all are in a course together LOL does the professor know who you all leaving comments actually are?

Report this comment

]]> By: Heynow http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/comment-page-1/#comment-630281 Heynow Sun, 18 Apr 2010 01:14:46 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/#comment-630281 This is actually great advice! I plan on using it in the future, even if I plan on reading the book, this is a great way of getting an idea of what the author has to say/their essential arguments and ideas. I don't understand why people are so offended, its actually kinda funny!!!! but thank you ckelty! This is actually great advice! I plan on using it in the future, even if I plan on reading the book, this is a great way of getting an idea of what the author has to say/their essential arguments and ideas.
I don’t understand why people are so offended, its actually kinda funny!!!! but thank you ckelty!

Report this comment

]]> By: Bob Lohr http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/comment-page-1/#comment-136877 Bob Lohr Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:09:46 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/#comment-136877 This supports everything I support in education. Learning how to learn is necessary. Reading every word of a text is not necessary. We are not hermeneutic Biblical or Qur'anic scholars. There is nothing holy about an entire book. Books are collections of information, and there a several ways of extracting and digesting that information. There is certainly something to be gained from reading a well-written book from start to finish. There is also something to be gained from skimming a book or using ckelty's method. An ethnography of the fetishization of reading among "crusty academics" would be interesting. The semiotic ideology at work here is fascinating. This supports everything I support in education. Learning how to learn is necessary. Reading every word of a text is not necessary. We are not hermeneutic Biblical or Qur’anic scholars. There is nothing holy about an entire book. Books are collections of information, and there a several ways of extracting and digesting that information. There is certainly something to be gained from reading a well-written book from start to finish. There is also something to be gained from skimming a book or using ckelty’s method. An ethnography of the fetishization of reading among “crusty academics” would be interesting. The semiotic ideology at work here is fascinating.

Report this comment

]]> By: Borderland » Blog Archive » Managing the InfoStream http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/comment-page-1/#comment-123753 Borderland » Blog Archive » Managing the InfoStream Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:24:30 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/#comment-123753 [...] the reading. Learning how to read faster is a good trick, so this post from Savage Minds about how to read a book in an hour looked interesting. I’m not a fast reader, and I want to work on this, but I don’t [...] [...] the reading. Learning how to read faster is a good trick, so this post from Savage Minds about how to read a book in an hour looked interesting. I’m not a fast reader, and I want to work on this, but I don’t [...]

Report this comment

]]> By: ckelty http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/comment-page-1/#comment-123471 ckelty Wed, 03 Oct 2007 01:27:31 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/#comment-123471 carmen, well spoken, and I agree that I haven't directly addressed the issue of unrealistic expectations. And yes the pedagogical power quip, while meant as a joke, does contain that grain of truth that a teacher's own insecurity can translate into unrealistic expectations and a forgetting of just how hard it is to learn how to learn, as you put it. I like to think I am aware of this, and I have had the luxury (for which I give thanks every day) of always teaching small classes in which I am allowed to shower attention on the students, both in and out of class. The result is that I usually catch the cases where students are struggling, and try to find ways to help them, if they are willing to be helped. Indeed, I gave this method to my current class as a response to a student's concern, not just as some introductory lecture meant to indicate that they better keep up or else feel worthless... but I can certainly sympathize that this is not the experience everyone has of unrealistic expectations... and in larger classes, I can see how the method might look like some kind of stupid algorithm that would be a substitute for real teaching. I certainly shouldn't make assumptions about the kinds of teaching and learning that people get based on my own experience of elite universities... carmen, well spoken, and I agree that I haven’t directly addressed the issue of unrealistic expectations. And yes the pedagogical power quip, while meant as a joke, does contain that grain of truth that a teacher’s own insecurity can translate into unrealistic expectations and a forgetting of just how hard it is to learn how to learn, as you put it. I like to think I am aware of this, and I have had the luxury (for which I give thanks every day) of always teaching small classes in which I am allowed to shower attention on the students, both in and out of class. The result is that I usually catch the cases where students are struggling, and try to find ways to help them, if they are willing to be helped. Indeed, I gave this method to my current class as a response to a student’s concern, not just as some introductory lecture meant to indicate that they better keep up or else feel worthless… but I can certainly sympathize that this is not the experience everyone has of unrealistic expectations… and in larger classes, I can see how the method might look like some kind of stupid algorithm that would be a substitute for real teaching. I certainly shouldn’t make assumptions about the kinds of teaching and learning that people get based on my own experience of elite universities…

Report this comment

]]> By: carmen http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/comment-page-1/#comment-123418 carmen Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:54:49 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/#comment-123418 Sorry ckelty, I didn't mean "broad and shallow" as a taunt or insult at all. I think it's a fine thing, and any given course negotiates a tension between "broad and shallow" and "narrow and deep". But I think that any course that pushes the boundaries in terms of reading load inevitably leans towards the "broad and shallow" side of things (caveat: I'm assuming a short course, 3 or 4 months). I think it's inevitable that a student's grasp of any individual author's perspective is going to be shallow if they have, say, 4-10 authors to read each week for 12 weeks. I think, though, that you've side stepped my point a little, which was more about the effects of unrealistic expectations combined with unrealistic work loads than about the objective value of teaching students to quickly grasp the gist of an academic argument (I agree with you on that point). From my perspective, the one-hour reading timeline is ridiculously over-optimistic. I got some new books today, and I tried a perusal of the index, not actually writing the page numbers, but noting the entries according to your steps 2-4. It took me 8 minutes to get from A to C. Optimistically this leaves me 1/2 an hour to read the introduction and the conclusion (a total of 63 pages) "carefully". I take "carefully" to mean, basically, that you have a strong grasp of what the author is saying, understand to some degree why they are saying it, and grasp the logical processes of their arguments. Honestly my "careful" reading speed is around 2-6 minutes per page, depending on my familiarity with the material, which puts me at 2-6 hours just to get through the intro and the conclusion. I have really tried to increase that, but the truth is that my comprehension plummets at 30s-1minute per page. The reason that I brought up the whole emotional/educational demands argument was because of your own description of your course load as an "otherwise gratuitous display of pedagogical power", and I suspect that it is the rather cavalier attitude towards your students needs (which in turn I suspect was more to add some humour or levity to the article than any actual callous disregard on your part) that has left some of the commenters here making such strong statements. However, there is something there in your first paragraph that I think needs to be addressed generally. I think that what we lose touch with as we progress through the academic ranks is how poorly prepared we often are for what is expected of us after transitions (1st year undergrad, 1st year grad, etc.), and how difficult the process of learning how to learn can be. The sentiment behind what you've said here is good--students should get some guidance in how to aproach the mounds of information in our world--but the way that we take this sentiment and turn it into teaching needs to be done with careful attention to the level of the students, to the tools that we can realistically expect them to have, and with attention to where idealized methods for learning break down. If you suggest to your students that they should be able to read a book in one hour, you are placing a tremendous personal responsibility on them to handle what you admit is an ambitious course load at best. When they are unable to do it (a near certainty) if you haven't laid a groundwork for more reasonably expectations, you risk teaching them that they are failures instead of that they need to learn (or how to achieve) efficiency in reading. I feel like I'm going on at way too much length here, but it's an issue that I've given a lot of thought to on my travels through ridiculously unrealistic course loads. I really don't mean to be insulting, and if you are sensing anger or frustration, it is directed at my own experiences, not at your course. Sorry ckelty, I didn’t mean “broad and shallow” as a taunt or insult at all. I think it’s a fine thing, and any given course negotiates a tension between “broad and shallow” and “narrow and deep”. But I think that any course that pushes the boundaries in terms of reading load inevitably leans towards the “broad and shallow” side of things (caveat: I’m assuming a short course, 3 or 4 months). I think it’s inevitable that a student’s grasp of any individual author’s perspective is going to be shallow if they have, say, 4-10 authors to read each week for 12 weeks.

I think, though, that you’ve side stepped my point a little, which was more about the effects of unrealistic expectations combined with unrealistic work loads than about the objective value of teaching students to quickly grasp the gist of an academic argument (I agree with you on that point).

From my perspective, the one-hour reading timeline is ridiculously over-optimistic. I got some new books today, and I tried a perusal of the index, not actually writing the page numbers, but noting the entries according to your steps 2-4. It took me 8 minutes to get from A to C. Optimistically this leaves me 1/2 an hour to read the introduction and the conclusion (a total of 63 pages) “carefully”. I take “carefully” to mean, basically, that you have a strong grasp of what the author is saying, understand to some degree why they are saying it, and grasp the logical processes of their arguments. Honestly my “careful” reading speed is around 2-6 minutes per page, depending on my familiarity with the material, which puts me at 2-6 hours just to get through the intro and the conclusion. I have really tried to increase that, but the truth is that my comprehension plummets at 30s-1minute per page.

The reason that I brought up the whole emotional/educational demands argument was because of your own description of your course load as an “otherwise gratuitous display of pedagogical power”, and I suspect that it is the rather cavalier attitude towards your students needs (which in turn I suspect was more to add some humour or levity to the article than any actual callous disregard on your part) that has left some of the commenters here making such strong statements.

However, there is something there in your first paragraph that I think needs to be addressed generally. I think that what we lose touch with as we progress through the academic ranks is how poorly prepared we often are for what is expected of us after transitions (1st year undergrad, 1st year grad, etc.), and how difficult the process of learning how to learn can be. The sentiment behind what you’ve said here is good–students should get some guidance in how to aproach the mounds of information in our world–but the way that we take this sentiment and turn it into teaching needs to be done with careful attention to the level of the students, to the tools that we can realistically expect them to have, and with attention to where idealized methods for learning break down. If you suggest to your students that they should be able to read a book in one hour, you are placing a tremendous personal responsibility on them to handle what you admit is an ambitious course load at best. When they are unable to do it (a near certainty) if you haven’t laid a groundwork for more reasonably expectations, you risk teaching them that they are failures instead of that they need to learn (or how to achieve) efficiency in reading.

I feel like I’m going on at way too much length here, but it’s an issue that I’ve given a lot of thought to on my travels through ridiculously unrealistic course loads. I really don’t mean to be insulting, and if you are sensing anger or frustration, it is directed at my own experiences, not at your course.

Report this comment

]]> By: ckelty http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/comment-page-1/#comment-123359 ckelty Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:27:03 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/#comment-123359 carmen, you make a good point about coming to the information for the first time-- certainly for students completely unfamiliar with some form of writing or some form of argument, there is a steep uphill learning curve, and I appreciate that. However, I of course am still correct :) because I think the alternative for most students is that they spend far too much time on the wrong parts of a book, for precisely this reason. They do not learn first where to read in a book, and instead submit entirely to it as if it were a novel that required starting at page 1 and soldiering through, never skipping, until that crucial final paragraph that makes it all clear. Not all books (indeed, very few I would argue) actually build an argument from beginning to end. Most are more like collections than single unified arguments, and the index is a powerful way to find out which kind of book you are holding. I also object to your taunt that I am teaching a broad shallow course. If you only knew how little I was teaching them ;) but seriously, there are some important disciplinary differences, I think, in that in history courses what looks like broad and shallow is in fact an attempt to array a number of different perspectives-- so about 5 of the 13 required books in my class rehash exactly the same material, but in different ways-- if my students don't have a deep understanding of that material by the end, i certainly will have failed. By contrast, in <a href="http://smatter.rice.edu/320" rel="nofollow">this course</a>, the focus was on carefully reading texts (and only 4 of them!) that proposed innovations in a theory, and the historical aspect of "public spheres" about which there is a GINORMOUS amount, was left out... I think those students also went deep, but in a different way... carmen, you make a good point about coming to the information for the first time– certainly for students completely unfamiliar with some form of writing or some form of argument, there is a steep uphill learning curve, and I appreciate that. However, I of course am still correct :) because I think the alternative for most students is that they spend far too much time on the wrong parts of a book, for precisely this reason. They do not learn first where to read in a book, and instead submit entirely to it as if it were a novel that required starting at page 1 and soldiering through, never skipping, until that crucial final paragraph that makes it all clear. Not all books (indeed, very few I would argue) actually build an argument from beginning to end. Most are more like collections than single unified arguments, and the index is a powerful way to find out which kind of book you are holding.

I also object to your taunt that I am teaching a broad shallow course. If you only knew how little I was teaching them ;)

but seriously, there are some important disciplinary differences, I think, in that in history courses what looks like broad and shallow is in fact an attempt to array a number of different perspectives– so about 5 of the 13 required books in my class rehash exactly the same material, but in different ways– if my students don’t have a deep understanding of that material by the end, i certainly will have failed. By contrast, in this course, the focus was on carefully reading texts (and only 4 of them!) that proposed innovations in a theory, and the historical aspect of “public spheres” about which there is a GINORMOUS amount, was left out… I think those students also went deep, but in a different way…

Report this comment

]]> By: links for 2007-10-02 « Chatquah and Galoshes http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/comment-page-1/#comment-123348 links for 2007-10-02 « Chatquah and Galoshes Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:19:58 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/#comment-123348 [...] how to read a book in one hour advice from anthropoligsts on reading. (tags: reading anthropology) [...] [...] how to read a book in one hour advice from anthropoligsts on reading. (tags: reading anthropology) [...]

Report this comment

]]> By: carmen http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/comment-page-1/#comment-123342 carmen Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:39:52 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/10/01/how-to-read-a-good-book-in-one-hour/#comment-123342 As a grad student, I've tried variations on this method for around 3 years. I haven't found a way to make it work for me. I've never found a book with an introduction + conclusion that I can read in an hour. I think one major problem is not just if the book is heavily argument-driven, but also how familiar the reader is with the material. New types of arguments--which often come with new vocabularies--simply take more time to process. If you're assigning so much reading that the first pass becomes the only pass, then I disagree that Edward's method is a good way to read ethnography. I feel that what gets lost is the interaction between the ethnographic details and the theory, which is where the strength of ethnography lies. If it's an undergrad class, you deprive them of the opportunity to discover what makes ethnography great, and if it's a grad class you encourage the kind of over-theorizing that is the bane of early grad studies in anthropology. I'm replacing my snarky last paragraph with it's essential observation: I think a syllabus that pushes the limits of possibility in terms of reading, especially coupled with the (in my experience false) promise of Edward's method, has a high risk of conveying a strong sense of failure and inability to students. This can be heightened by things like the difficulty of the material or one's isolation from one's peers. There is certainly a benefit from learning to get a broad but shallow grasp of a topic quickly, and I wouldn't suggest that ambitious reading schedules or some training in how to quickly assess the arguments of a book is bad. However, I think that such a pedagogical approach needs to be applied carefully. Profs need to acknowledge the kind of demand that this places on students, both educationally and emotionally. Students need to know that this kind of course is an exercise in broad, shallow learning, and given course goals and objectives that match the approach. The limits that this approach places on learning should also be acknowledged, either by incorporating other approaches over the duration of the course, or by letting students know upfront that there is more information than they will be able to fully process, and that the course acts as an introduction and guide to their further studies. As a grad student, I’ve tried variations on this method for around 3 years. I haven’t found a way to make it work for me. I’ve never found a book with an introduction + conclusion that I can read in an hour. I think one major problem is not just if the book is heavily argument-driven, but also how familiar the reader is with the material. New types of arguments–which often come with new vocabularies–simply take more time to process.

If you’re assigning so much reading that the first pass becomes the only pass, then I disagree that Edward’s method is a good way to read ethnography. I feel that what gets lost is the interaction between the ethnographic details and the theory, which is where the strength of ethnography lies. If it’s an undergrad class, you deprive them of the opportunity to discover what makes ethnography great, and if it’s a grad class you encourage the kind of over-theorizing that is the bane of early grad studies in anthropology.

I’m replacing my snarky last paragraph with it’s essential observation: I think a syllabus that pushes the limits of possibility in terms of reading, especially coupled with the (in my experience false) promise of Edward’s method, has a high risk of conveying a strong sense of failure and inability to students. This can be heightened by things like the difficulty of the material or one’s isolation from one’s peers.

There is certainly a benefit from learning to get a broad but shallow grasp of a topic quickly, and I wouldn’t suggest that ambitious reading schedules or some training in how to quickly assess the arguments of a book is bad. However, I think that such a pedagogical approach needs to be applied carefully. Profs need to acknowledge the kind of demand that this places on students, both educationally and emotionally. Students need to know that this kind of course is an exercise in broad, shallow learning, and given course goals and objectives that match the approach. The limits that this approach places on learning should also be acknowledged, either by incorporating other approaches over the duration of the course, or by letting students know upfront that there is more information than they will be able to fully process, and that the course acts as an introduction and guide to their further studies.

Report this comment

]]>