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

Rules for Choosing Nonfiction Books

herman.asia

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 205 posts

Re: Rules for Choosing Nonfiction Books

#121

Post by gordon_freeman »

tptacek wrote: post #16

John Carreyrou wasn't an expert on phlebotomy or biochemistry. Roger Lowenstein wasn't an expert on hedge funds or technical finance. Eric Schlosser on nuclear command and control? Nope. Woodward and Bernstein and constitutional law? Not so much! I don't think these are very good rules. I thought it was especially amusing that this person doesn't trust journalists to write about anything but journalism. If you believ…

This method does seem limited. I have read some of the best nonfiction books from Journalists over the last few years: Vance's biography of Musk, Stone's biography of Bezos and the books from Issacson including Job's biography. Author's missing all these NF books due to his disdain for the journalists.

Re: Rules for Choosing Nonfiction Books

#122

Post by davidivadavid »

jcoffland wrote: post #7

Like the article's #3, I have my own silly rule, but it's a good one. No books with the author's name written in a larger font than the title. This eliminates books who's main merit is the author's fame. It's especially good at filtering out crappy New York Times best sellers and it works for fiction too.

Sort of, but not really. To give a random example, look at Philip Roth book covers.

Re: Rules for Choosing Nonfiction Books

#123

Post by Emma_Goldman »

dtornabene wrote: post #110
Emma_Goldman wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good point, but it's worth noting that Marx wrote Capital with the help of Engel's patronage. Journalism was not his livelihood, ultimately. And it was before the wide-ranging, academic professionalisation of the twentieth century. Had Karl Marx been born today, he would almost certainly have become an academic.

Journalism was literally his only livelihood. He was a journalist/editor years before he even conceived of the theories that spawned Capital, and he did it for the rest of his life. His first newspaper was actually shut down precisely because of his journalism on the question of the rights of poor to gather wood in forests owned by the crown and nobles. He went on to write for at least 3 other papers/journals that I…

If you read Gareth Stedman Jones' biography of Marx, it's very clear that there was a persisting shortfall between whatever income Marx acquired via journalism - which was, in any case, fluctuating - and the outgoings of his family. He depended upon regular support from Engels, among others.

Re: Rules for Choosing Nonfiction Books

#124

Post by pvg »

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #113
tptacek wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea who you are or what expertise you have; I'm responding to your own statement that you're unaware of these journalist-authors because you don't read much nonfiction.

You said, if you are incurious about something, you ought not to make sweeping statements about it. I was challenging the premise, i.e. that I'm incurious about non-fiction books. I don't, by that way, think the claim holds up. It's perfectly possible to be incurious about something and to make a sensible general statements about it (e.g. 'all ducks have wings'). Hence why I told you to engage with my reasoning. I ne…

You can't really logic-puzzle your way out of 'if you are unfamiliar with books written by journalists, you're not in a good position to make worthwhile pronouncements on books written by journalists'. It's not even an interesting thing to try and dispute.

Re: Rules for Choosing Nonfiction Books

#125

Post by mc32 »

tptacek wrote: post #107
mc32 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m implying this journalist had the luck of right resources at the right time for the right subject and proceeded in a manner to seek the truth rather than to simply want to bring Theranos down. W/re economics. We have the likes of Fukuyama and Krugman who have influence on Americans with regards to economics but who are often taken as oracles, rather than accepting they are economics thinkers who can be wrong.

Krugman won a Nobel prize in economics . Like him or not, you can't use him as an example of a "journalist" writing about a technical subject with which they have no expertise. My argument isn't "all books are good". That would be a stupid argument. My argument is that these rules suck.

In that, I agree with you.

Re: Rules for Choosing Nonfiction Books

#126

Post by wmil »

minouye wrote: post #78

Here's what I do. If I get a book recommendation, I immediately buy it and put it on a bookshelf. Every time I walk by, I scan the shelf and pick what speaks to me at that given time: fiction, non-fiction, cookbooks, science, history, classics, short-story collections, biographies, etc. If you match your what you read to your mood and frame of mind, you can consume and retain information much more quickly and enjoyab…

> You don't need to finish books. Stopping mid-way is fine (still have problems with this!)

I think this is important with non-fiction. A lot of books can be wrapped up nicely in 80 pages, but the publisher wants 300. So they get a lot of unneeded padding at the end.

Re: Rules for Choosing Nonfiction Books

#128

Post by tptacek »

davidivadavid wrote: post #116
tptacek wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is blood lab technology not a technically complex subject? Are you saying Carreyrou had direct expertise with it, or that _Bad Blood_ is an untrustworthy account?

Does Bad Blood cover the tech aspects of Theranos? My impression was that it was more about the psychological and legal stuff. Edit: ... which obviously doesn't make the book any less interesting.

It does indeed. The question you are asking leads me to believe you haven't read it. As a favor to the thread I will make this plain: drop everything else you're reading long-form and buy a copy of _Bad Blood_; it is fantastic. I didn't give a shit about Theranos. Until I got a couple pages into Carreyrou's book, that is.

Re: Rules for Choosing Nonfiction Books

#129

Post by yoz-y »

For non fiction I only read what was directly recommended by somebody whose taste I already know. It takes discovery out of the equation and I definitely miss good books, but since I do not read that many non-fiction books this method is highly efficient.

Re: Rules for Choosing Nonfiction Books

#130

Post by prlambert »

gordon_freeman wrote: post #121
tptacek wrote: post #16

John Carreyrou wasn't an expert on phlebotomy or biochemistry. Roger Lowenstein wasn't an expert on hedge funds or technical finance. Eric Schlosser on nuclear command and control? Nope. Woodward and Bernstein and constitutional law? Not so much! I don't think these are very good rules. I thought it was especially amusing that this person doesn't trust journalists to write about anything but journalism. If you believ…

This method does seem limited. I have read some of the best nonfiction books from Journalists over the last few years: Vance's biography of Musk, Stone's biography of Bezos and the books from Issacson including Job's biography. Author's missing all these NF books due to his disdain for the journalists.

Did you read the post? He specifically calls out biographies as the exception to the 'no journalists' rule and describes why journalists are well suited to write bios.

In other words there's no reason to believe the author would miss any of the books you mentioned by his "journalist disdain".

Post reply on HN