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

Ask HN: Are a lot of books just useless?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 54 posts

Re: Ask HN: Are a lot of books just useless?

#21

Post by dcchambers »

I'm going to assume you're talking about nonfiction books, because this is highly subjective for novels/fiction.

Most books are terrible, and even most "good" books have large swaths of filler content. Very few books are packed with useful content from front to back cover.

I think this is largely due to pressures from publishers and the way books are traditionally published and sold.

A 50 page book that is jam-packed with goodies and has no filler won't sell nearly as well as a 300 page book that seems to be full of stuff from an expert in the field. A 300 page book looks a lot better on a shelf than a 50 page pamphlet. Most of us know in our brains that quality > quantity, but our hearts often tell us the opposite.

Some fixes already exist: Online content, blogs, developer docs, and self-published books.

Practically, I would say don't worry about skimming books or parts of books if they seem like they are mostly fluff or overly repetitive. Because they probably are.

Re: Ask HN: Are a lot of books just useless?

#22

Post by gumby »

SOunds like you're talking about nonfiction books and indeed, like most things, those are mostly crap.

As far as fiction goes the same is true but there's one weird trick I use: by and large I only read books by dead authors. The volume of the world's books is enormous, and again, most is crap. But if someone has died (no more book publicity tours!) and their book is still in print or readily available, there's a better chance that it's worth reading.

There's more to it than that of course; naïvely following this rule would suggest reading (ugh) Ayn Rand. But there's a big variety of good stuff still in print or easily findable at a used book store.

Re: Ask HN: Are a lot of books just useless?

#24

Post by justsomehnguy »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #17

Yes, most books are crap. But Sturgeon's Law is a thing, so that should not be surprising. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law It took me years to get past the first 100 pages of both Dune and Stars in my Pocket like Grains of Sand but once I did, both turned out to be excellent. The only reason I kept trying is that I'd heard they were both good and I couldn't figure out what I was missing until I found i…

> It took me years to get past the first 100 pages of both Dune

Oof.

I was easier for me, because I was like 12-14y/o at the time. Honestly, I don't remember a shit about it, except what it was good at times. I wouldn't mind to try it again (and not an extremely poor translation now) but... I know it would be quite tedious and I know what I wouldn't make it. Hell, I didn't finished books what very relevant for my interests for years now.

Re: Ask HN: Are a lot of books just useless?

#26

Post by justsomehnguy »

> I have the right to try to avoid books I would consider 'useless'.

Yes! Of course you have the right to choose what you are reading. Don't forget about it.

> What tools/metrics are there to help find meaningful books?

Do you really want a metric on a highly subjective matter? Does a bad rating on Goodreads means what the book is bad? Does that that mean what you wouldn't enjoy it if it relevant for your interests?

> it's probably a mix of everything.

Of course.

Try this[0] (or find a text copy, it's available on archive.org too), it's short and...

[0] https://archive.org/details/ExhalationByTedChiang

Re: Ask HN: Are a lot of books just useless?

#28

Post by westcort »

A good place to start is this randomizer for books with Wikipedia entries: https://www.locserendipity.com/Books.html

Random exposure to books might help you find something that is of greater interest to you that you would read otherwise. I found, for example, this book, which I found interesting by this method: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Metamorphosis_of_Prime_I...

Re: Ask HN: Are a lot of books just useless?

#29

Post by Reki »

zemvpferreira wrote: post #7

Books are a medium that has been elevated by pseudo-intellectualism into a divinity of sorts. They're as good as what's written in them and like most human output, most are garbage. Why should it be any different? Is most of TV that good? Most magazines? Most TikTok? Most music? Conversation? What are you trying to read and why? From your description it sounds like you're reading to learn, which is fine but likely su…

Every medium has creation and consumption costs, and it affects their average quality. Books have a high creation cost: both in time and money, relative to electronic mediums. They also have a high consumption cost, as you cant read a book in a few seconds like you can watch shortform content. These factors select for quality.

Re: Ask HN: Are a lot of books just useless?

#30

Post by huge87 »

idopmstuff wrote: post #20

Absolutely yes - a lot of nonfiction books that are intended to be a deep dive into a particular topic written by experts are like this, and I think it's clearly because they need to hit a page count as you've suggested. I just finished a book called Arbitrary Lines, about land zoning in the US. I was looking for a really deep dive into the history of zoning and how it ended up in its current state, or perhaps compar…

I've been exploring book summary services as a means to narrow down my reading choices. Once I have decided to read a book, I find it helpful to keep the summary on hand to improve my comprehension and keep track of the book's main ideas.
Post reply on HN