The book goes into the process of reading and discusses the levels of reading: basic comprehension through dialectical reading (putting texts into conversation with each other or as parts of communal conversations on topics). And again all fine. But where this book feels downright silly is where we take this as a step-by-step process, but it’s not actually a how to, so much as a how this happens. Sure this could very well teach you how to read more complex books, especially moving from say level three to level four. But how would you go from level one to level three? Well, good luck. The book is specifically antagonistic to the process of scaffolding, meaning the reading supports that help you attain mastery. There’s some in terms of reading and rereading, which is a kind of scaffold, but it basically tells you not to consult outside sources to guide you through a text, which feels bizarre to me. What I think it turns out is that if you’re someone who’s probably more or less inclined toward the kinds of reading you do in college, this book might mirror that process, but I am convinced it can help you along that process. At the same time, there is almost no scientific backing of the claims made here. It’s not that it’s out of date, which it is, but it’s specifically ahistorica/ascientific in its approach. It’s based on what SEEMS like it makes sense based on the fact that the two professors here are examplars of the types of reading, but not exemplars in reading specialism itself.
How to Read a Book (kind of)
How to Read a Book by Charles van Doren and Mortimer Adler
This is probably not going to be the worst book all year, but it will probably be the most obnoxious. Ostensibly, this book teaches you how to read a book. Cool. How do I read this book then? Not answered!