Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Case Against Reading Everything

thewalrus.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 61 posts

Re: The Case Against Reading Everything

#31

Post by Barrin92 »

jonnathanson wrote: post #13
pedrosorio wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You also realize there is no trade off between depth and breadth. It's a false dichotomy. Given that we're in a forum where computer science and engineering topics are often discussed, I find it odd that anyone would suggest this. You have a limited resource (time). Whenever you have a limited resource, there are tradeoffs in how you spend it. Unless exhaustive search is feasible, there is indeed a tradeoff between…

Depth and breadth, in this case, are not opposite directions on a straight line. They are vectors that only appear oppositional when viewed under specific time constraints. The more prolific a reader you are, the more efficiently you read, and thus your higher throughput dramatically compresses time. If we're to speak about very specific increments of time and units of reading material -- say, you get to read N books…

>Depth and breadth, in this case, are not opposite directions on a straight line

humans have limited memory, we are not machines. How many books can you remember, and not just in a vague sense, but lines, tone, structure?

Nabokov made a similar statement as the author claimed that the only good reader is a re-reader. Nobody can genuinely remember more than a few books and be familiar with them, if you read hundreds of books at the end of the year you might as well have read nothing. But every time you reread a great work, you learn something new and free your mind up to discover even more things about it.

The very best musicians will often study their favourite pieces compulsively. They have an intimate relationship with them that others have not.

I am very sympathetic to the message of the author because we seem to be living in an age where people attempt to measure literacy on a scoreboard by counting how much books they've read. Obviously this is as doomed of an attempt as being in a hundred relationships at the same time.

A good friend of mine teaches Russian literature, and when he talks about a book like The Brothers Karamazov he can get so much more out of one book than I get out of reading 50. That is something to me that resembles genuine understanding.

Re: The Case Against Reading Everything

#32

Post by naiyt »

todd8 wrote: post #21

I've read a great deal for the last 50 years, but I feel that this gives me little time for fiction. Every time I pick up a fictional work, I know that I'm going to be forgoing hours of reading or thinking about other things. I feel that I have limited time for fiction. Sadly, this causes me to miss out on the joy of reading good fiction. It's easy to speed read technical material, especially with the benefit of 50 y…

Have you considered audio books? That's the main way I consume fiction these days. I love listening to audio books while doing other things (commuting, cleaning, going on walks, etc). It's a good alternative (or companion) to listening to music or podcasts. Looking at my Audible library I've listened to about 27 books in the past few years (most of them fiction).

Re: The Case Against Reading Everything

#33

Post by wittedhaddock »

WhoIsSatoshi wrote: post #17

I sympathize, I love reading but I intently skip some books until they have surfaced - I view reading as a monte-carlo localization: read what appear to have the most probable high reward as determined by the prior exploration, but occasionally throw a curveball in there in case you might be missing something that is just that far out. Interestingly, can be applied to many other aspects of one's life.

I have explained utility maximization of reading using monte-carlo visual in the past. I appreciate your comment.

Re: The Case Against Reading Everything

#34

Post by briga »

I think the benefit of reading widely if that you start to realize how almost nothing is original. Nearly everything has been done before and done better. Once you realize that you can start carving out a piece of original territory as a writer. A writer without that perspective is inevitably going to write low-quality unoriginal books.

Reading widely isn't about reading everything. Any good reader will learn to discriminate between good and bad writing over time, and will inevitably be drawn to books that are worth reading. No man is an island, and no writer is an island either. The whole endeavor of human knowledge is all about being bolstered by the minds that have came before you and adding a little on top of that.

Re: The Case Against Reading Everything

#35

Post by dansanderson »

The article doesn't directly address (or takes as read) the ways reading is supposed to make you a better writer. Depth is better than breadth because a deep read is how you internalize how language communicates ideas.

The argument for breadth, especially the kind of breadth that says "read trash as well as classics," assumes at least a deep enough reading to understand how a piece of writing works or doesn't work. Understanding how Dan Brown novels are bad--and how they're good--can be illuminating. The article seems to be arguing that this idea is overrated, and that giving that kind of attention to bad writing (or just many kinds of writing) is counterproductive.

I "read" constantly. I just read this article and many comments here. But I almost never read in a mode that would supposedly improve my writing. The advice to read more in that mode makes sense. Letting all kinds of garbage wash over me uncritically does not.

Re: The Case Against Reading Everything

#36

Post by egypturnash »

My experience as an artist AND a writer (I make comics, it involves both) is that cribbing from one person is plagarism, while cribbing from eight people in the course of a single drawing/paragraph is a Bold, Original Style.

Reading widely has exposed me to new ideas, some of which became favorites. It's also exposed me to a lot of bad writing, which is helpful in building that inner sense that says "this sentence is shit" or "this sentence is amazing". And it's given me a good sense of the clichés of how a plot will progress, and how to balance using them because, well, they're clichés because they work, against doing something different to suit the precise needs of the story, or to surprise readers.

And yes, I have also chased obsessions, too. There's time for both. I've got favorite creators who I've devoured everything they made, and will buy a new work from without needing any review.

Hell, the two key insights that helped me approach the very complicated last third of my dense, weird graphic novel came from re-reading an old favorite (Iain M. Banks's "Use of Weapons") and from watching something way out of my comfort zone (J.C. Staff's "Revolutionary Girl Utena"). It would have been a lot less coherent without the lessons in the power of repetition I learnt from Utena.

Ultimately whatever works for you as a creator is good, but I sure do find that a more broadly-cast net has a lot more interesting things to pick and choose from in it.

Re: The Case Against Reading Everything

#37

Post by [deleted] »

naiyt wrote: post #32
todd8 wrote: post #21

I've read a great deal for the last 50 years, but I feel that this gives me little time for fiction. Every time I pick up a fictional work, I know that I'm going to be forgoing hours of reading or thinking about other things. I feel that I have limited time for fiction. Sadly, this causes me to miss out on the joy of reading good fiction. It's easy to speed read technical material, especially with the benefit of 50 y…

Have you considered audio books? That's the main way I consume fiction these days. I love listening to audio books while doing other things (commuting, cleaning, going on walks, etc). It's a good alternative (or companion) to listening to music or podcasts. Looking at my Audible library I've listened to about 27 books in the past few years (most of them fiction).

[deleted]

Re: The Case Against Reading Everything

#38

Post by yesenadam »

folksinger wrote: post #3
jonnathanson wrote: post #2

This article is horseshit. I'm a professional writer, and I'll trust Oates and King over whoever this guy is. "Read widely" isn't some religious dictum. It's more of a religious calling. (Of sorts.) If you love to read, and you love to write, you naturally read all fucking day. Your thirst is unquenchable. Your tastes are varied. So you drink from many different fountains. You also realize there is no trade off betwe…

The point of the article was in encouraging writers to hone in on an individual voice as opposed to being influenced by thousands of competing tones. Perhaps an analogy to songwriting will make things more clear: how well received are the works of someone who writes rap-funk-metal-folk-electro-bluegrass songs? It's not that a successful country music songwriter can't listen to and enjoy hip-hop but you'll find they t…

> rap-funk-metal-folk-electro-bluegrass songs

That sounds awesome!! Country and metal do nothing for me, but that genre sounds potentially amazing.

Re: The Case Against Reading Everything

#39

Post by icebraining »

folksinger wrote: post #24
ellius wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think maybe the only way to be a good artist though is to explore the things that resonate with you. If rap-funk-metal-folk-electro-bluegrass speaks to your soul, and creating that music fulfills you, then who’s to say exploring those genres is a mistake? There are other measures of success than recognition. Austin Kleon puts this especially well in “Steal Like An Artist.” He says that you can cut off some of your…

Neither of us want me to write an essay about Wittgenstein's notion of "meaning through social interactions" and how this applies to artistic value, but I'll summarize it thus: art needs an audience. Now, given the vast population of the world, I'm sure there are a few people out there who are into bluegrass-rap fusion, but your friends, family and neighbors are probably not going to get much out of it. So who do you…

Just as a reference, Gangstagrass already has 18 scheduled live shows for the next five months :)
Post reply on HN