How to Read a Book

There are useful insights in this book but it's far too stodgy to recommend. The misogyny of the 1940s really shows, as the only pronouns used in the book are he/him, and the recommended reading list of 137 authors contains only two (!) women – one of whom was George Eliot.

I could see this being more useful, widely read, and appreciated if it were updated for modern audiences. Alder and Van Doren and both dead now, so I'm sure they wouldn't mind shaving off 100+ pages of repetitiveness and overwrought explanations. In the spirit of syntopical reading, I look forward to reading an alternative.

Not sure how I feel about this book. A bit pretentious... like reading a grandiose description of how to tie a shoe.

What I got out of it:
- Skim books before reading.
- Ask questions as you read.

Appendices:
- List of recommended reading.
- Exercises to test reading levels.

Time will tell if the 15 rules for analytical reading actually improve comprehension of the content I shovel into my eyeballs.

This book is very long and very dense, but I'm inclined to say that it should become a text book for middle schoolers who are learning how to do research and write papers on what they learn.

I discovered that there's a lot here that I learned to do haphazardly and instinctively, but it would have been helpful in school to have more of a method to the approach.

Well, at least I've learned to look at the book better before I start reading it, so at least some good done. Other than that, the book didn't do much for me. The rules are good and presented in pretty concise way, but there were no ‘a-ha' moments for me and some parts of the book were not even applicable to my reading.
Also, I think they could have done a better job at editing it for the ‘updated' edition, as some ideas felt very outdated, I had to remind myself of when it was published sometimes.
Overall, I think it was great work for the time it was published, but I'd like to read something more modern, that reflects the changes in how people read these days.

This book has described how to criticise and dissect pretty useful books and the instructions were clear and meaningful. Next, the authors introduced 3 levels of reading and IMO Analytical reading was the best among them.
Now to the point where they described reading books on different subject matters and various literary structures, where they mostly talk about what to expect while reading a particular subject. I think his points on -History, biography, philosophy, theology and social sciences were solid although their points on history and biography seemed kind of the same. For science, they only discussed the history of science, which was not that much helpful. Overall his lecture on philosophy was thorough albeit a little bit draggy to read.
I would recommend it to anyone who is looking to charge up their reading game
P.s- I didn't read it cover to cover

How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote -

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RTJKFMQMWP739?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

To apply the learned professors' heuristics: this is a practical book of exposition that I read for information. The unifying whole of this book was centered around the problem of answering the question of “what are the virtues that make for excellence in reading.” The unity is broken down by addressing four “levels” of reading, starting with the bare art of deciphering writing, to the cursory overview of reading, to analytical reading which asks the reader to apply the virtues of reading, and, finally, to “syntopical” reading where various “related” books are read to expand the reader's understanding on a particular subject. This book is also broken down in its second part to a demonstration of these virtues - or skills - to particular genres of writing, such as poetry, fiction, history, social sciences, science and other topics.

I understood the book, which Professor Adler and Van Doren, teach must be affirmed before anything else can be said. I thought this book properly covered its subject matter, was not illogical and was not misinformed or uninformed. Therefore, I have no choice but to agree with it.

That said, I first read this book back in 2008, some 30 years after graduating from college. I wished then, as I wish now, that I had been introduced to this book when I was 18, rather than 48. Certainly, I could read books at the time, but I think that my reading was only partly formed and moved more by instinct than reason. I definitely learned from my first round of reading the importance of being willing to mark up a book.

From that time, I would say that I have been applying a lot of the insights of the book, although I don't think I was doing so consciously. A lot of my reviews ask the question of what problem the book I'm reading is addressing and I've learned to tear down books to their elements in order to understand the text.

This time around, I think I obtained a more solid foundation of a model for being a book reviewer. I think that the tips and skills used for reading also make for excellence in reviewing.

Let's see what happens.

Por mais infantil e ridículo que pareça aprender a ler é algo que não é feito corretamente.
Quando somos levados à escola e aprendemos a juntam letras e a formar sílabas aprendemos uma forma de ler, aprendemos a ler concretamente.
Os seguintes anos de educação são feitos de uma tentativa de ensinar a ler mais profundamente quando a maioria dos alunos não estão interessados. Um livro como “How to Read” tem todas as técnicas e questões mais as milhas notas e considerações por e para leitores. Porém o livro é extremamente minucioso o que o poder tornar difícil de digerir.

Got this book after History of Knowledge (which I really liked) and I can not say anything new that has not been said in comments before this one.

The book is overexplained and has that bit of a pretentious tone of a snob writer. I must say that over explanation is sometimes needed so that every reader can get writer's ideas and points. Especially in science books, or whenever author has something refreshing or interesting to say

But there is nothing interesting here.

The analysis goes very shallow and does not branch out into other themes that can be associated with reading.

If I did not know half the things that are written in this book I could not read it and understand it at all.

Or maybe the pretentious tone of the book reminded me of my own pretentious writing style.

Yikes.

Cheers anyways.