Talk:How to Read a Book
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Actually, Adler wrote three books all called "How to read a book", darn him! --Uncle Ed 19:48 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)
Ed, with all due respect could we link a review that is not from an explicitly Christian point of view? Slrubenstein
- One trained and equipped to be a life-long learner (an active reader) and whose source of knowledge is of the one and only triune God will be one equipped to take “every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” even as Paul stood upon Mars Hill and took captive the thoughts of the Stoic philosophers, and later, the educated King Agrippa, as well as the common Jew and Gentile.'
- Yeah. Right Ed. Great review. Real balance. Tannin 23:54 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Table of Contents
I've removed the Table of Contents. It didn't seem enyclopedic material and may (thought probably not) be a copyvio. Superm401 - Talk 16:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Book overview
I've added an in-depth summary and overview of the 1940 edition. Any typo/grammar fixes would be appreciated (I'm sure I missed something) as would help with finding and adding relevant links to other articles. Also, I'm sure that the formatting could be improved; this is my first edit outside of some minor anonymous typo/word usage fixes. If anyone's read the newer edition and would like to add more about that, I'd recommend making a new L2 section titled "changes and additions in the 1972 edition" or something to that effect, assuming it makes sense to do so. I've not read the later edition. Fallingcow 17:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 1972 revision
I've read the "overview of the first edition"(as of Jan19th 2008). I am unable to comment on it's accuracy, as I only have access to the 1972 edition. However, I will say that the overview presented here differs significantly from my understanding of the author's message-at least in the later edition. Of most significance, Syntopical reading is mentioned but never explained. Of lesser significance, phrases like "the first reading", "the second reading" are needlessly indirect. They should be replaced with the specific stage of reading being discussed.
My understanding of Adler's "Stages of Reading":
Beginning Reading | Elementary Reading: The business of making words from letters, and sentences from words. (mentioned simply as a prerequisite) |
Intermediate Reading | Inspectional Reading: The "quick once-over". Getting the most from a book in a very limited amount of time (a few minutes to an hour).
Analytical Reading: 1) understanding a book's structure, 2) understanding the author's arguments and central message, 3) determining what the author's message means to you. |
Advanced Reading | Syntopical Reading: Surveying many works of literature on a single topic, Finding truth by examining several points of view. |
I believe these stages to be core to the author's message, with all other points serving only to support this central proposition. As such, I'd like to see the wikipedia summary place more emphasis on the stages so that they are communicated clearly and concisely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubin427 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur. Dw5 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)