For a book which you do not read for prose (for example, books

So, in your mind, if an author's prose isn't beautiful, then reading a plot summary of their 500-page novel is no less impoverished than reading the novel itself.

>the point of reading such books isn't just to maintain some kind of appearance but to struggle with and understand the ideas laid out and through this process better oneself.

Call me shallow, I read because it's fun, and therefore reading a plot summary of a novel is no substitute for reading the novel.

>>8875765
It's a thought that occurred to me, I'm not wholly convinced by it but I wanted to discuss it and see some arguments for (or as well more likely be the case) against it.

>>8875767
I don't think reading for fun is shallow. Shallowness comes from doing something for sake of appearance. Not for private personal enjoyment (which I should have included with self-betterment).

What a nice and simple world you live in. A book can only offer philosophy or prose (ie, number of metaphors per sentence).
Pro tip: there's a fuckton of things that a book can offer, and you have been indoctrinated by /lit/ if prose is everything to you.

>books on philosophy
I'd rather carefully and critically go through the philosopher's arguments and reasoning instead of having conclusions served to me on a plate by some third person, thank you very much.

>translations of certain books
This phrase is more or less vague.

>or Russian authors like Dostoevsky
See how indoctrinated you are? Have you read C&P? Could a summary give you the sheer emotional intensity of the murder scene? Could it vividly paint the darkness and misery of the setting? Could it retell the philosophical discussions with any actual depth? Could it challenge you? Etc etc. You are a horrible reader if a summary can replace actual reading.

>you will forget about 80-90% of what you've read within the year
Nice statistics for easily quantifiable things such as memory.

>What you'll end up remembering will, in the end, be equivalent to a summary.
No it won't. Because I would have actually experienced the book. I don't read to remember later, I read to experience now. Memory is nice, but incidental.

if you read for the prose then why don't you read brief descriptions of the prose instead

>>8876577
That's a fair argument. Regarding the memory stat, its from a study by Ebbinghaus (the basis for most spaced repetition software today).

Let's consider another perspective then. Doubtless after having read the book you will forget a great deal of it, is it now permissible to read a summary (or perhaps your own notes if you took them) to jog your memory? Or would you "relive the experience" again?

The point of the original question was to ask how one deals with finite time in which to read books (other than just selection).

Even going by your 80-90% memery argument, remembering 20% of a 400 page book is a hell of a lot more than remembering 20% of a 400 word wikipedia summary

>>8876841
The idea would be to review the summary once in a while; this is something you can do easily with a summary but not so easily with an entire book.

Also its not a meme, the study is out there and you can read it for yourself. Look up 'Ebbinghaus'

>>8875753
Because you can't know if the summary is good unless you've read the book. And because the summary is just someone else's interpretation, often wrong or misleading. Who the fack reads summaries? How could a summary of a philosophy book be in any way like reading the actual book? what is wrong with you OP? candles don't burn in the wind