Reading Literature

>>9305198
The book seems to be intended for instructing people who don't normally read (I get this mostly from the title). It's basically saying, 'Read the book once over really fast. Don't worry if you don't get it the first time, you'll go back and get it!'

Rereading books is valuable, and to readers that is obvious (particularly if you actually like the book). But, those who aren't readers might not know this or, by themselves, have the genuine willingness to reread something. So, the reread not only has to be coached but seemingly contextualized as the actual part when the reader begins to put effort into understanding the book (and the first go-thru was merely preliminary).

File: 1490021534951.gif (2MB, 419x292px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 419x292px

>>9305286
Forgot pic, it's unrelated

File: 51Q7KD6BFDL._SX338_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (37KB, 340x474px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 340x474px

I prefer this book. you might as well.

>>9305286
>>9305286

I see, that makes sense. I can see why rereading can be so important, especially if the book is a denser philosophical work. However, my main uncertainty is with attacking literature; is it really ok to start reading something like Don Quixote or The Brothers Karamazov with only that quick, speedy read?

Hope I'm not misunderstanding you, I wonder if you are perhaps suggesting that this technique be used for people who don't read, and as skills develop reading literature should become more intuitive and not necessitate a quick read-through

>>9305312

I will definitely look it up, thanks!

>>9305286
You're basically just saying people who truely like reading reread books. Are you trying to make that the point of the arguement, or is that common knowledge to you?

>>9305339
Read at what pace you wish.
I read slow, but get the most out of it that way.

>>9305365

That helps a lot. I am also a slow reader, to a point where it often bothers me (I think 100-120 wpm) but I find I can remember specific details as a result.
I'm a bit of a perfectionist, that may be part of the reason why I read slowly, and also why I am a little bothered by the Alder's suggestion. Maybe I should try it out once

>>9305383
Then you are a little like me in that respect.
There is no way to do it right, just go along with what suits you best.

>>9305383

when adler talks about reading over quickly, does he necessarily mean skimming? i think he might be trying to say, just read it at your pace but don't stress if you spend more than 30 seconds re-reading a passage

thanks for dissuading me from buying this book

Read Schopenhauer's " On Literature", that's all you need as far as book reading goes.

Aren't a few comprehended tips enough? Why read entire books for this single purpose?

>>9306702

Hmmm, this is a good point. Re-reading the thread, I actually realize >>9305286 also said this concisely. Thanks!

>>9306776

I did a quick Google search, is it called "The Art of Literature"? Thanks

>>9306804

I'm not the best reader, and seeing books written on this topic and lauded by others makes me wonder if there is something to them