Hello sophomores, has anyone here read this? PATRICIAN MODE:

>>9850930
great book that will give you some inspiration to read. no I doubt anyone here has read the entire recommended reading list as that would take you a least a decade if you're not speed reading.

fun fact: mortimer j adler was born jewish but converted to catholicism

I have very mixed feelings about this book. It has good points but the way he explains them is jarring. It did not have to be 400 pages, although it's a very easy, and thus fast read. In the first +50 or so pages he's talking about how bad the school system (of 40s) is and he definitely keeps on rambling about stuff with no merit, also keeps on mentioning the same stuff over and over again, the excuse for this could be that this way you remember the rules etc easier.

If the only thing you want is the reading algorithm:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/dao/how_to_read_a_book/

>>9851934
I agree with everything you said. Part of me wishes I had just read what you posted (I found something similar on wikipedia). However, it was an easy read and rereading the same point so many times really ingrained into myself. Plus all the unnecessary info set the scene appropriately I suppose. At any rate, I'm very excited to use these new tools at my disposal. And thank you for the link, I was going to make something similar today, glad I don't have to!

>>9851527
>At least a decade
It's only around 200 books on the list though? At a measly average of a book a week it would only take 4 years (but, perhaps that is speed reading after all). But, it will likely take me around a decade as I will be meandering through many other books.

I read it and it was a waste of time. It goes over what you learned in school to take notes, read the table of contents, etc.

>>9852905
Perhaps you still don't know how to read well, as much more was discussed than taking notes and reading the table of contents (as examples, searching for propositions, arguments and conclusions, coming to terms with the author, etc). Alternatively, you may have gone to a much better school than I!

I had wished it covered fiction a little more, as this is, for me, far more difficult to digest than nonfiction. The author himself failed in his own rubric and criteria he defines (toward the end when one is supposed to critique a book, and ask if the initials problems were sufficiently solved; in my opinion, here he did not solve the issue of fiction well enough).

In what order are you supposed to read the reading list?

The impression I got of it when I read parts in high school was that it was much more oriented around general non-fiction than fiction. For fiction, Nabokov's lectures (on world literature and Russian literature) are ideal to get a sense of what you "should" be doing as a reader.

>>9854609
thanks anon, sounds like what I'm looking for. If you have anything else to recommend, I'm all ears (err, eyes more accurately).

>>9854609
Also, I am reading Lolita currently so excited to see what he has to say, but I could not for the life of me find the these lectures.

>>9854609
>>9855098
>>9856534
Oh, I see.. This is a book, isn't it? Not an actual recorded lecture.. kek. Anyhow, thank you! Will begin reading now :-)

>>9854609
I'm reading How To Read atm and I agree. I'm about halfway through the book, but most of what the book is about is reading expository books. Sure, it's an easy read and there is some useful information about reading but I don't feel like I'm getting that much additional information about reading fiction which is disappointing.

>>9856626
I felt the same, and upon opening the book I was looking more towards developing fiction comprehension. However, there is a dedicated section to it towards the end and how it relates to the expository rules and conduct. Also, this anon, >>9854609, posted some solid recommendations which are available on libgen.io.

>>9854609
In regards to Lectures on Literature and Lectures on Russian Literature, which should be read first, and what prerequisites might be necasary? I am not comfortably familiar with any of the text mentioned in either book, and wonder if that might be a hinderence.

>>9856736
You can read either book -- it doesn't heavily matter. The difference is that the Russian Lit one sometimes points out things that are clear in the original Russian versions of the text but missing or not emphasized in the translated versions. IIRC, the non-Russian book has a nice intro about "good readers and good writers" (also available here: http://www.en.utexas.edu/amlit/amlitprivate/scans/goodre.html), so that might be good to start with.

When you read the lectures, it will be clear/obvious, but in case you didn't know, these were intended for undergrad students, in a class that could essentially be called "How to read a book". You can take that as you will: in terms of prerequisites, you simply need to be a halfway smart person.

And of course, it's *usually useful* to either read or at least get a sense of the novels/stories before going into the lectures --- although, from my own experience, it's not utterly necessary, as long as you're OK with 1) Nabokov's viewpoints potentially affecting your own, 2) spoilers, and 3) just learning the basics of "how to read a novel/story in-depth" versus appreciating the specific books/stories that Nabokov talks about more fully.

Short reads from each book would be The Metamorphosis by Kafka and The Overcoat by Gogol, for the non-Russian and Russian books respectively.

>>9856736
>>9857370
Also, in case I wasn't clear, the lectures are (mostly/entirely) discrete: they don't really reference each other, at least not in any important ways. So you can pick and choose which you'd like to read and like to get a sense of.