The Bookish Life: How to Read and Why • Hacker News Board

Re: The Bookish Life: How to Read and Why

#61

Post by simonebrunozzi » Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 10:32 PM UTC

StrictDabbler wrote: post #2

As I read this piece I was able to predict the direction it would go and the evidence that would be presented for each opinion. By the end I had been neither surprised nor enlightened by anything presented in it. The author likes old books, dislikes digital reading devices and audiobooks, dislikes most things written since his own birth unless they were written about the western canon or by people trained entirely in…

And your comment, instead, is incredibly helpful for me, because it saved me a few minutes of my life.

Thanks for this.

It reminds me that years ago I tried (unsuccessfully) to launch a "TL;DR" service for Hacker News articles. This is a small test I ran: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11193792

Re: The Bookish Life: How to Read and Why

#62

Post by mcguire » Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 10:43 PM UTC

paulcole wrote: post #50

emptyfile wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment you're replying to is sarcastic.

A good rule of thumb is to assume all of my posts are sarcastic.

That's funny; none of mine are.

Re: The Bookish Life: How to Read and Why

#63

Post by eatonphil » Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 11:26 PM UTC

I wrote (what I consider to be) a slightly more accessible post last month on the same topic after I really picked up reading books four years ago.

My argument is that reading is a must for profressionals to learn and remember the ability to distinguish biases, trends, novelty, etc.

Furthermore, I don't recommend "literature" as a starting point but must-read books in your field. It can be easier to start because the material is closer and because it doesn't feel like reading was a waste of time.

Afterward diversifying to economics, psychology, domestic and foreign history, management, etc. and fiction become easier to make time for and easier to see the benefits.

http://notes.eatonphil.com/why-and-how-to-read-books.html

Re: The Bookish Life: How to Read and Why

#64

Post by paulcole » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 3:22 AM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #62

paulcole wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good rule of thumb is to assume all of my posts are sarcastic.

That's funny; none of mine are.

At least you thought I was funny.

Re: The Bookish Life: How to Read and Why

#65

Post by sanderjd » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 3:50 AM UTC

ACow_Adonis wrote: post #24

sanderjd wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really want to pile on, but the irritating part is "whose name is now as lost to me as it is to history". It's still irritating in the context of the paragraph you quoted.

How so? It's clearly linking the idea that the person's name being lost to history is connected to being the type of person who lists reading on the same level as other incidental hobbies.

It reads as haughty, overwrought, and cliche to me. To each their own I suppose.

Re: The Bookish Life: How to Read and Why

#66

Post by thisiszilff » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 6:10 AM UTC

sanderjd wrote: post #19

newdayrising wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound far more motivated by bias than the author. At least he makes it pretty clear that his is an opinion.

The parent comment seems pretty clearly an opinion as well. But this is why I often end up writing "I think" and "I believe" even though people often say to avoid doing so: I'm always afraid that if I don't someone will accuse me of stating fact without evidence when I only mean to be expressing opinion.

I believe the rule is to avoid it when you're trying to persuade because by default it makes you sound less convincing.nif you're just discussing, then to hell with the rule.

Re: The Bookish Life: How to Read and Why

#67

Post by Noumenon72 » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 2:12 PM UTC

paulcole wrote: post #50

emptyfile wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment you're replying to is sarcastic.

A good rule of thumb is to assume all of my posts are sarcastic.

A good rule of thumb is to write your posts so they convey sarcasm to a reader who doesn't know you personally.

Re: The Bookish Life: How to Read and Why

#68

Post by paulcole » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 10:22 PM UTC

Noumenon72 wrote: post #67

paulcole wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good rule of thumb is to assume all of my posts are sarcastic.

A good rule of thumb is to write your posts so they convey sarcasm to a reader who doesn't know you personally.

Great advice!

How was that?

Re: The Bookish Life: How to Read and Why

#69

Post by jonjacky » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 3:01 PM UTC

sanderjd wrote: post #18

Jtsummers wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > I recall some years ago a politician whose name is now as lost to me as it is to history who listed reading among his hobbies, along with fly-fishing and jogging. > What was the point of this? Why not just "reading is my hobby"? The point was that he considered reading a "hobby" as much as breathing for himself. You have to include the rest of that paragraph though to see it: > I recall some years ago a politicia…

I don't really want to pile on, but the irritating part is "whose name is now as lost to me as it is to history". It's still irritating in the context of the paragraph you quoted.

He is making the point that in your lifetime you experience a long procession of politicians and other celebrities who are thought important for a while and are then forgotten. That is why, as he says later (twice), he is not interested in reading thick biographies of formerly famous politicians.

I think some commenters here are missing the intended tone of the article. It's supposed to be a confection, an amusing and self-deprecating defense of his old-fangled preferences, with a melancholy tinge about running out of time (the author is in his eighties).

Re: The Bookish Life: How to Read and Why

#70

Post by EliRivers » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 5:20 PM UTC

PaulOlteanu wrote: post #58

EliRivers wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just "Solomon, writing under the pen name 'Ecclesiastes', said..."? Saying "the man" and then following up with "the fellow with the name" emphasies that who he was is less important than what he said; the fact that it's Solomon, writing Ecclesiastes (two names widely recognised in the Western canon) serve to emphasise this. EVEN THOUGH it's written by someone famous in a famous book, what he wrote is STILL m…

If the goal was to make the fact that the man who said those words is not important while the words are, why not just not mention Solomon or Ecclesiastes in the first place.

Stating that the person who said it is Solomon, and then making it clear that the speaker is less important that the words, serves to emphasise what is important.

The man who wrote it DOES matter, it DOES alter the effect. Solomon wrote it, in the book Ecclesiastes! Of course that makes a difference, and the writer here deliberately drew our attention to that. Dismissing a famous writer as unimportant carries more weigh than dismissing a complete unknown as unimportant.

This isn't some kind of simple logical operator statement that one can apply Boolean algebra to and simplify. This is already massively simplified; the writer expressed a lot of meaning in very few words. So much meaning, so compressed, that many readers think it's just the opposite - little information in too many words! People asking why this wasn't short are missing the fact that this IS the short version!