Comments on: Further Thoughts on Reading: Going Deep AND Wide

By: Roger

Roger — Mon, 31 May 2010 13:59:55 +0000

Trevin,

Bravo! Well said. Keep up the good work. And I, as an “old man” and encouraged by your work ethic.

sdg
rd

By: JT Caldwell

JT Caldwell — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 03:10:35 +0000

Well said, Trevin! Great way to balance your former repost on the subject. And, thanks for responding to others’ (including mine) comments in this manner.

By: John Gardner

John Gardner — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 03:21:02 +0000

I agree with the previous poster. I tend to read most books very quickly (with the exception of things that require slow reading based on their depth or reading level). I like to try to get the overall message of a book first. I will often then re-read (either immediately or, more often, sometime later) those books which I feel call for further study or reflection.

This is also typically how I study my Bible. If I am going to study a book, I tend to read the entire book (especially the epistles) in one sitting first, and then I go back for a verse-by-verse study with the book’s “general effect” fresh in my mind.

I read “Holy Subversion” in just a few hours. This is not a reflection of depth… I wanted to take it all in at once, so that I can reflect on it before going back through more slowly, reading the notes I took as I went through the first time. It’s a great book!

By: Micah Cobb

Micah Cobb — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:49:05 +0000

I think rereading is more important than reading slowly. No matter how slow you read a good book, you’ll always miss something, whether it is a point the author makes or a connection you can make to another topic/book. I’ve read that some of the Reformers claimed to have read Augustine’s major works more than 50 times in their lifetime.

I know this doesn’t settle the question of whether you should read books quickly or slowly. However, I think reading a book 5 times quickly will be better than slowly reading a book once.

That being said, one shouldn’t reread bad or mediocre books multiple times–but maybe one should put down the book at the moment one realizes it is bad/mediocre. The literary critic Harold Bloom says that he’ll stop reading a book midway if he learns that it isn’t worth rereading.

(On the topic of rereading, C. S. Lewis said in his *An Experiment in Criticism* that the “sure mark of an unliterary man is that he considers ‘I’ve read it already’ to be a conclusive argument against reading a work….Those who read great works, on the other hand, will read the same work ten, twenty, or thirty times in the course of their life.”)

By: Carrie

Carrie — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:57:24 +0000

I’ve read some 200 pg books that could have been reduced to 20 pgs. I agree that with some books, you can get the point pretty quickly.

By: Guy Fredrick

Guy Fredrick — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:52:48 +0000

It IS possible to read more than one book at a time. I regularly have as many as 5 or 6 books in process at any given time. Some (like the Bible) never get “finished” they are ongoing continually. Others, as you well state, are read and move on material.

Thanks again for dealing with this important subject. Not a day goes by when I don’t hear something along the lines of, “I read my last book in high school and hope to never have to read again…” How sad a thought, and how uninformed the person that holds it.

I cannot think of any other way to combat the “sound bite” main stream media attempts to coral American (and the world) thoughts into a singular philosophy than reading entire works dealing with the subject matter at hand. Everyone has a “good argument” but not everyone’s argument is based in reality or fact. How does one know without examination of the grounds for the debate, and how else to acquire those grounds except to read the background material.

Kudos!