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

141–150 of 205 posts

Re: Rules for Choosing Nonfiction Books

#141

Post by hoytech »

"When I'm in a book store nowadays, or when I'm at a conference looking at a table full of new books, I try to gauge how good the books are by picking them up and -- yes, I guess it's okay to reveal the secret -- I turn to page 316. I try to read that page rather carefully, and this gives me an impression of the whole book. (Often the book is too short; then I use page 100. Authors, take note if you expect me to buy anything you've written.) This system works quite well, I think."

-- Donald Knuth in "Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About"

Re: Rules for Choosing Nonfiction Books

#142

Post by tptacek »

davidivadavid wrote: post #111
pvg wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like a rule of thumb that’s served you poorly, given it’s left you unfamiliar with some of the most widely acclaimed recent (and less recent) non-fiction work.

Whether recently acclaimed works will remain relevant or are just trendy remains to be clarified.

_When Genius Failed_ was written 18 years ago, by a journalist, and predicted many technical details of the 2008 crisis. It's also an excellent book, so if this is news to you, let me also recommend it unreservedly as a good read.

Re: Rules for Choosing Nonfiction Books

#143

Post by oxymoron »

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #64
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…

I don't know any of the authors you've mentioned, but in my own experience, not reading books written by journalists is a good rule of thumb . That doesn't mean, obviously, that it's impossible for a journalist to write a good book. By profession, journalism is both shallow and narrow: it focuses on the surface of events in the given moment. That tends not to equip someone with the knowledge or expertise to write a t…

Agreed. That said, to give some credit, here are a few I’ve read during the last few years that I can offer as counter examples:

* All the shah’s men, by Stephen Kinzer, about how the 1953 coup against the democratically elected prime minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh was orchestrated.

* The Idea Factory, by John Gertnee, about the history of Bell Labs

* A mind at play, by Jimmy Soni and Rob Goodman, about Claude Shannon

* Ike’s bluff, by Evan Thomas, about Dwight Eisenhower

* The Wise Men, by Walter Isacsson and Evan Thomas, about diplomats during the Truman administration

I tend to be more skeptical about books written by journalists that relate to some specific topic rather than historical narrative. Additionally, I tend to read the historical narratives with more skepticism than I do when I read history books written by professional historians.

Re: Rules for Choosing Nonfiction Books

#144

Post by jcoleh »

I would recommend still reading books written by journalists since some can be very good. But for these books adjust your Goodreads rating threshold to something more like 4.2 or 4.3 for journalist-written books.

Re: Rules for Choosing Nonfiction Books

#145

Post by dlkf »

> Malcolm Gladwell’s books are enjoyable—there is no denying he tells compelling stories—but ultimately they rely heavily on anecdotal evidence. In general, I find that books by journalists cherry-pick examples to fit the argument, and gloss over (or completely ignore) evidence to the contrary.

The irony.

Re: Rules for Choosing Nonfiction Books

#146

Post by veddox »

maceurt wrote: post #5

The idea that only 4+ star rating books are worth reading is laughable. Reading only very popular books is a recipe to read only books that fit into your own preconceived worldview.

> Reading only very popular books is a recipe to read only books that fit into your own preconceived worldview.

... under the assumption that everybody who rated the book shares your preconceived worldview. Assume that not to be the case on Amazon.com (or similarly large review platforms).

Re: Rules for Choosing Nonfiction Books

#147

Post by x0x0 »

tptacek wrote: post #128
davidivadavid wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is at least one "holy shit" moment in every single chapter in that book.

Re: Rules for Choosing Nonfiction Books

#148

Post by veddox »

Addendum to rule 1: Browse through the bibliography.

Quick but effective heuristic to gauge how serious the book is, and how well the author knows his field. If there isn't one, don't bother buying it. If it's a 20 page list of citations from reputable journals (or original sources, if you're reading a history book), then the author doesn't have to be a professor to be believable.

Re: Rules for Choosing Nonfiction Books

#150

Post by mtVessel »

baddspellar wrote: post #90

I would argue that goodreads is not a particularly good way to determine whether a non-fiction book is worth reading. goodreads reviewers are just regular people who evaluate books based on how much they enjoyed them, not how accurate of useful the books are. If I'm looking for a book I want to learn from, I scout recommendations from journals, magazines, blogs, respected radio programs/podcasts. End of year "best of…

Tracy Kidder was the immediate counterpoint that came to my mind, as well. "The Soul of a New Machine" probably is (or should be) on every HNer's bookshelf. "Mountains Beyond Mountains" was also a fascinating read about an entirely different subject -- a doctor's humanitarian work.

Also agree that Goodreads reviews require a healthy dose of caveat lector.

Post reply on HN