The Reading Habit


For people who want to read but just can’t seem to get (make?) the time, the authors of the Farnam Street blog suggested having a target of 25 pages per day. Additionally, they listed some ways to get the time for those 25 pages/day.

Ryan Holiday raised a problem with the 25 pages per day approach:
“Broken up into too many pieces, you’ll miss the whole point of the book, like the proverbial blind man touching an elephant. Those who conquer long books know that it’s not a matter of reading some pages before you fall asleep but rather, canceling your plans for the night and staying in to read instead.”
Valid point, responded the Farnam Street guys. But the point of 25 pages a day was slightly different:
1)      Partly, it was to get over the starting problem that many face (“If I can't read for hours on end, why bother starting?”).
2)     The number was the minimum pages to read a day, not the maximum!

The other problem with the advice was caused inadvertently. All of us have books we love, and we quote them as examples of the benefits of reading. The Farnam Street guys, had cited the 25 pages/day as a way to read books like The Power Broker, War and Peace, Anna Karenina, and The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in just a year. Like me, the names of such books put off many people:
“Some readers took that to mean that they should attempt these huge tomes out of pure masochism and use the 25-page daily mark to plow through boredom.”
The authors of the blog clarified. They weren’t recommending those books to everyone. After all:
“Here’s another unspoken truth: Any central lesson you can take away from War and Peace can also be learned in other ways if that book doesn't really interest you. The same goes for 99% of the wisdom out there — it's available in many places. Unfortunately, too many English lit professors have promoted the idea that “the classics” contain some sort of unique unobtanium of wisdom. Sorry, but that’s bullshit.”

I realized I’ve been following the path they actually recommend:
“The better idea is to read what seems awesome and interesting to you now and to let your curiosities grow organically. A lifelong interest in truth, reality, and knowledge will lead you down so many paths… Not only is this approach way more fun, but it works really, really well. It keeps you reading. It keeps you interested.”
Amen to that!

Comments

  1. Online gamesFebruary 15, 2019 at 9:18 PM

    https://www.evernote.com/shard/s405/client/snv?noteGuid=cf14ead0-4460-44d7-bef0-712c24b6c648&noteKey=10634aee78c0f3b552a65319732d3781&sn=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.evernote.com%2Fshard%2Fs405%2Fsh%2Fcf14ead0-4460-44d7-bef0-712c24b6c648%2F10634aee78c0f3b552a65319732d3781&title=Are%2BPC%2BGames%2BBecoming%2Bexcessively%2BExpensive

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ramiah KumarFebruary 16, 2019 at 9:23 AM

    Interesting points no doubt and well presented.

    However, the point in this sentence reflects some amount of "simple condemnation": QUOTE Unfortunately, too many English lit professors have promoted the idea that “the classics” contain some sort of unique unobtanium of wisdom. The suggestion is that, "What is there to glorify the classics?" leading further towards, "Classics need not hold worthiness, and that includes wisdom!"

    If we see the point of the sum-up paragraph having: "The better idea is to read what seems awesome and interesting to you now and to let your curiosities grow organically. A lifelong interest in truth, reality, and knowledge will lead you down so many paths." one finds that this indeed is inclusive of the classics! When the classics first appeared, they were certainly not classics; people read them because of "interest in truth, reality, and knowledge will lead you down so many paths".

    Overdoing high pedestals for classics is admittedly silly. If overzealous professors did it, it is not good. By that token, overdoing expressions to the effect "old literature lack intrinsic merit" may lack perspective too.

    My conviction towards 'viewing things in a balanced way' has not got shaken so far.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why we Deceive Ourselves

In their book, The Elephant in the Brain , the authors describe this weird aspect of deception that we practice: deceiving ourselves! That is so weird: “If our minds contain maps of our worlds, what good comes from having an inaccurate version of these maps?” The Sigmund Freud school of thought treats self-deception as a defense mechanism, “a way for the ego to protect itself”. The mind seeks to protect itself from anxiety and other negative emotions. Many object to this reasoning: since accurate information is so critical to our survival, surely distorting information would be dangerous. Wouldn’t the goal of protecting our self-esteem have been better achieved by making the brain’s self-esteem mechanism stronger instead? The new school of thought explains self-deception as “primarily outward-facing, manipulative, and ultimately self-serving”. This is based on Thomas Schelling’s work on game theory: “In a variety of scenarios, limiting or sabotaging yourself is the winn...
Read more

Europe #3 - Innsbruck

The last city we visited in Europe was Innsbruck in the Austrian Alps. After the cold and windy experience (at times) of Paris and Netherlands, Innsbruck was a wonderful change – it didn’t feel that cold, it was not windy all of which made it easy to walk around. Something absolutely necessary given how scenic the place is.   Since the hotel check-in time was much later in the day, we left the baggage and went to the Swarovski HQ-cum-museum about an hour by bus from Innsbruck. The crystal exhibits were brilliant – colorful, bright, shiny. Jewellery aside, it was a display of what one can do with crystals. While my wife and daughter loved the jewellery, I liked the superhero themed exhibits of Batman, Spiderman, the Hulk, and Star Wars. We didn’t buy anything there, though we did buy stuff in the Swarovski store in Innsbruck – jewellery, not the superhero stuff.   Innsbruck is a major tourist attraction during the skiing season but now in summer, we saw many groups of ...
Read more

The Thrill of the Chase

So many people complain about the difficulty in making decisions while shopping. Do you buy Brand X that gives 20% extra free? Or Brand Y that has 10% off? Or Brand Z that gives something else free with it? Do you buy that flat screen TV today or wait for the sale at Diwali? Now since the customer is king, shouldn’t companies be simplifying pricing choices? Like maybe offering consistently low prices all the time? Not so fast, as the US store, JC Penney discovered to its cost. Turns out that while people do complain about pricing choices, they are irrational. Also, they enjoy the thrill of the chase. Huh? The word “sale” acts like a siren call for many people: it lures them in to make that purchase. Consistently low prices don’t do the same. Besides, if a competitor lowers their prices just one time of the year, and Poof! Suddenly that low price claim becomes suspect in shoppers’ eyes. Then there are those sites that offer coupons: have lunch at Restaurant A on Wedne...
Read more