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

In praise of the hundred page idea

tracydurnell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: In praise of the hundred page idea

#51

Post by johngossman »

johngossman wrote: post #48
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snyder is right-wing? News to me! (Speaking of right-wing historians, does anyone have thoughts on Richard Pipes? Specifically his book on the Russian Revolution. I found it fascinating, but it has been criticized, and I'm not sure how much credence to give the critiques.)

While we’re on the subject of reading advice, here’s mine. If I really want to learn something, like the history of the Russian Revolution, I have to read it three times. So, I’d read Pipes, then read Antony Beevor, then read China Mieville, then triangulate. Pick any three authors. Pipes was definitely conservative, but there is no such thing as completely objective history, especially on a topic like the Russian Re…

You can also take Parfit’s advice and just read Sidgwick over and over.

Re: In praise of the hundred page idea

#52

Post by Learner100 »

For most self help / productivity books, I agree pretty strongly with this take. A lot of those types of books (Atomic Habits, Getting Things Done, Measure What Matters as some examples) often feel like they could have been reduced to a blog post, or series of blog posts at most. They were good books, but I did feel like there there was some padding to slog through in each chapter.

Usually, the point is communicated fairly quickly a few paragraphs into the chapter and then belaboured for pages with one or two anecdotes that don’t lend much more weight to the strength/validity of the point for me.

Re: In praise of the hundred page idea

#53

Post by ahazred8ta »

tolerance wrote: post #15

I am disappointed. I thought this was about an individual elucidating their own ideas across one hundred pages in a rough manuscript. As far as books go, give me the 300 pagers. Inundate me. I’m ready. It’s time. The internet has betrayed my intellect. 300 pages. Inundate me. I want to read the 300 pager that expands upon the 100-page idea. Inundate me . I’m ready. I’ve had it with the screen. Unless it can point me…

I am amused by the business authors who give away their book for free online, and then charge money for the shorter executive summary. $$$ Me, I've read Webster's 3rd cover to cover.

Re: In praise of the hundred page idea

#54

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

johngossman wrote: post #48
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snyder is right-wing? News to me! (Speaking of right-wing historians, does anyone have thoughts on Richard Pipes? Specifically his book on the Russian Revolution. I found it fascinating, but it has been criticized, and I'm not sure how much credence to give the critiques.)

While we’re on the subject of reading advice, here’s mine. If I really want to learn something, like the history of the Russian Revolution, I have to read it three times. So, I’d read Pipes, then read Antony Beevor, then read China Mieville, then triangulate. Pick any three authors. Pipes was definitely conservative, but there is no such thing as completely objective history, especially on a topic like the Russian Re…

I actually read Fitzpatrick's book on the Russian Revolution first. Her view was a lot different from that of Pipes, and I didn't feel well-positioned to adjudicate.

That's where my issue comes from. I don't think reading a 3rd book would solve it.

Pipes' account resonated better with my view of human nature, but maybe that's just my bias creeping in ;-)

Maybe the trick is to initially focus on well-studied areas of history where there is very little controversy, to calibrate your BS detector. Then once you're calibrated, you can be more judicious learning about the controversial stuff.

Thoughts on that strategy? If it seems good, I'd love to get some recs on specific "authoritative" history books which could be good for calibration purposes :-)

Re: In praise of the hundred page idea

#55

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

johngossman wrote: post #48
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snyder is right-wing? News to me! (Speaking of right-wing historians, does anyone have thoughts on Richard Pipes? Specifically his book on the Russian Revolution. I found it fascinating, but it has been criticized, and I'm not sure how much credence to give the critiques.)

While we’re on the subject of reading advice, here’s mine. If I really want to learn something, like the history of the Russian Revolution, I have to read it three times. So, I’d read Pipes, then read Antony Beevor, then read China Mieville, then triangulate. Pick any three authors. Pipes was definitely conservative, but there is no such thing as completely objective history, especially on a topic like the Russian Re…

BTW, Pipes was so hard on Lenin that he made me start thinking perhaps communism might've actually worked* if it wasn't for that Lenin guy.

* by "worked", I mean evolved into something more functional, benevolent, and incentives-aligned, perhaps akin to Nordic social democracy, or perhaps something novel

Re: In praise of the hundred page idea

#56

Post by cafard »

karaterobot wrote: post #12

> Part of why I dislike essay collections is their neverendingness; I’ll read two, three, four essays in a volume and I still can’t cross it off my list. An incomplete task, it becomes a mental weight, an obligation. I’m deprived of the satisfaction of finishing. Not being able to close a book without reading everything in it is a problem. People need to get over this, it's compulsive behavior. You don't have to read…

The books that I feel compelled to finish are those for our neighborhood book club. The household that picks furnishes dinner, so I feel that there is a contract there. (Not every one does. "Well, I've been really busy, and I listened to most of it.") This has led me to finish a few rotten books that I'd never have gone past page 20 on if I had encountered them at a beach house.

But you raise an interesting point. I really like The Hall of Uselessness by Simon Leys, but have I read every essay in it? I think so, but am not sure.

Re: In praise of the hundred page idea

#57

Post by kome »

aguaviva wrote: post #37
kome wrote: post #28

kind reminder that timothy snyder isn’t held in great regard by other historians, even by right-wing ones—so, basically his own camp. especially on methodological grounds, omer bartov and richard evans have called out his use of chronological juxtaposition, saying it implies connections between events without enough evidence. this, along with other critiques, makes it an entertaining hundred page maybe, but not great…

even by right-wing ones—so, basically his own camp Snyder isn't right-wing at all. Where did that come from?

Snyder has been defined ad “nolte with an NPR tote bag” (Nolte being the Ernst Nolte) for his work comparing communism with nazism https://jacobin.com/2023/01/soviet-union-memorials-nazi-germ...

Re: In praise of the hundred page idea

#59

Post by kome »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #30
kome wrote: post #28

kind reminder that timothy snyder isn’t held in great regard by other historians, even by right-wing ones—so, basically his own camp. especially on methodological grounds, omer bartov and richard evans have called out his use of chronological juxtaposition, saying it implies connections between events without enough evidence. this, along with other critiques, makes it an entertaining hundred page maybe, but not great…

Snyder is right-wing? News to me! (Speaking of right-wing historians, does anyone have thoughts on Richard Pipes? Specifically his book on the Russian Revolution. I found it fascinating, but it has been criticized, and I'm not sure how much credence to give the critiques.)

yeah, Snyder is right-wing: "Snyder’s “century of blood,” with its “twinned totalitarianisms,” has become a new “common-sense,” liberal talking point — “Nolte with an NPR tote bag,” as a colleague put it. His Bloodlands is just a more sophisticated rendering of suggestive correlation between Nazism and the Soviet Union, legitimizing formerly fringe-nationalist dogmatic talking points, while hiding behind extremely problematic chains of citation. He has proved repeatedly willing to connect Nazi atrocities to Soviet crimes. Even Wehrmacht-veteran historians like Joachim Fest, who minimized the Holocaust, made clear that it was Hitler, not Stalin, who was “devoid of any civilizing ideas.” https://jacobin.com/2023/01/soviet-union-memorials-nazi-germ...
Post reply on HN