Surgical Reading: How to Read 12 Books at Once(superorganizers.substack.com)
superorganizers.substack.com
Surgical Reading: How to Read 12 Books at Once
https://superorganizers.substack.com/p/surgical-reading-how-to-read-12-books
47 comments
strongly seconded. Life is too short to read bad books or drink bad wine. I have this rule that if I'm not excited about the book after 50-100 pages I move on (exception are some rare novels or philosophical works that don't start before page 400 or are so arcane that you won't get them until the 3rd or 4th pass anyway).
The hard part for me is to stay focused and not drift off into multiple genres/topics. If I read about the period of the enlightenment it's easy to get sucked into 20th century authors covering (sometimes regurgitating) the subject. If I find myself drifting off in this manner, I make it a new category on my "to-read list" for a future time to maintain focus.
The hard part for me is to stay focused and not drift off into multiple genres/topics. If I read about the period of the enlightenment it's easy to get sucked into 20th century authors covering (sometimes regurgitating) the subject. If I find myself drifting off in this manner, I make it a new category on my "to-read list" for a future time to maintain focus.
I think even the publishers suggest a title thats best suited for the content too, and the author still gets the final say. I too am skeptical when it comes to so-called “hacks” in general but I’m happy to try this one out.
I am not yet fortunate enough of having been published, but I think the number of authors in any position to "demand a title" is extremely limited, they are glad about being published at all. If a publisher says "I think this title is more marketable", well, ... but it's of course not the main point I was trying to make. If you find a method that works, great, I think most "methods" are highly individual, if not flawed, and in the end, reading is reading, and that's it.
My opinion about that is deeply influenced by a professor I used to have. Once he spent one lecture just reading a brilliant essay by a British judge. He did not read it, he performed it, slowly, carefully, and it was the best lecture I ever had. And his advice was: "read slowly, or you might as well not read at all, forget the 'hacks', the speed-reading techniques, reading is enjoyment, if you have the right material, be thankful for every second, savor it", and if only I could have taken his advice more seriously at the time. I do now though.
My opinion about that is deeply influenced by a professor I used to have. Once he spent one lecture just reading a brilliant essay by a British judge. He did not read it, he performed it, slowly, carefully, and it was the best lecture I ever had. And his advice was: "read slowly, or you might as well not read at all, forget the 'hacks', the speed-reading techniques, reading is enjoyment, if you have the right material, be thankful for every second, savor it", and if only I could have taken his advice more seriously at the time. I do now though.
[deleted]
I agree that titles don't describe the exact contents of books, but if I want to learn Python then I'd probably skip a book titled "Intermediate Javascript". If you read the full article you'll know he talked about looking at the index after the title to learn more specifics.
He also directly addresses your other concern regarding dropping a book. His "hacks" seem like a good way to evaluate the merits of finishing a book or just reading parts.
He also directly addresses your other concern regarding dropping a book. His "hacks" seem like a good way to evaluate the merits of finishing a book or just reading parts.
When I was in my teens I used to go to the library and pick up 20-30 books on the same subject and basically sort them into various piles of difficulty, and then start reading and move to the next book if I hit a blocker, and possibly come back to the same book with renewed insight.
Every author explains things differently and explains key concepts in different orders, so it's a no-brainer to go through multiple books on the same subject at the same time.
But IMO you still do need to dedicate yourself to linear reading the truly good books.
Every author explains things differently and explains key concepts in different orders, so it's a no-brainer to go through multiple books on the same subject at the same time.
But IMO you still do need to dedicate yourself to linear reading the truly good books.
Why would you do this?
If you did an Arts degree (like I did in the UK) you probably recognise this technique. I will admit it was some time back - my degree was all about reading from multiple sources. The goal was to have multiple perspectives on events (in my case history) which are inherently subjective. In reality, there was never enough time - so you "filleted" the core of each argument, grabbed some quotes and dug out some tiny element to "prove" you'd read it. Running 10-15 books - hah - I was researching multiple areas - 15 a week maybe?
And, that's how my degree was made - I'm sure lots of people have similar experiences and skills. I totally accept that this form of reading is possible.
But, beyond "professional learning" it's terrible. It's unenjoyable, develops poor understanding, limits comprehension of nuance and destroys enjoying the flow of the argument. Unless you have to do it, I can't see why you'd put yourself through it. Ultimately reading for learning is not about volume, it's about considered thought.
If you did an Arts degree (like I did in the UK) you probably recognise this technique. I will admit it was some time back - my degree was all about reading from multiple sources. The goal was to have multiple perspectives on events (in my case history) which are inherently subjective. In reality, there was never enough time - so you "filleted" the core of each argument, grabbed some quotes and dug out some tiny element to "prove" you'd read it. Running 10-15 books - hah - I was researching multiple areas - 15 a week maybe?
And, that's how my degree was made - I'm sure lots of people have similar experiences and skills. I totally accept that this form of reading is possible.
But, beyond "professional learning" it's terrible. It's unenjoyable, develops poor understanding, limits comprehension of nuance and destroys enjoying the flow of the argument. Unless you have to do it, I can't see why you'd put yourself through it. Ultimately reading for learning is not about volume, it's about considered thought.
Good article.
He mentions the book "How to Read a Book". I've read Mortimer Adler's version several times. It really changed how I read and learn from books. It's well worth the investment. I haven't read the Mortimer & Van Doren version.
I've found that doing the inspectional reading really helps. I've described it to friends as "giving me something to hang my hat on" while reading. Having the high level overview acts as a conceptual glue while reading a book through for the first time.
I think it was Naval Ravikant on an episode of Tim Ferriss' podcast that described reading as the "meta skill". If you can read you can learn just about anything.
Back to "How to Read a Book": Adler makes a distinction between able to read, e.g., "See Jack run", and learning from reading. I believe he describes 4 levels. The first, the ability to read, leading to the last, reading from multiple sources to learn. It's unfortunate that our ( U.S. ) educational system doesn't emphasize this much, or at all.
He mentions the book "How to Read a Book". I've read Mortimer Adler's version several times. It really changed how I read and learn from books. It's well worth the investment. I haven't read the Mortimer & Van Doren version.
I've found that doing the inspectional reading really helps. I've described it to friends as "giving me something to hang my hat on" while reading. Having the high level overview acts as a conceptual glue while reading a book through for the first time.
I think it was Naval Ravikant on an episode of Tim Ferriss' podcast that described reading as the "meta skill". If you can read you can learn just about anything.
Back to "How to Read a Book": Adler makes a distinction between able to read, e.g., "See Jack run", and learning from reading. I believe he describes 4 levels. The first, the ability to read, leading to the last, reading from multiple sources to learn. It's unfortunate that our ( U.S. ) educational system doesn't emphasize this much, or at all.
"How to Read a Book" is one book that I think every school and university should teach from cover to cover.
it completely changes your approach to learning to be significantly more rigorous, and i can't speak highly enough about it. and of course, it's not just good for reading from books, but any kind of reading you want.
it completely changes your approach to learning to be significantly more rigorous, and i can't speak highly enough about it. and of course, it's not just good for reading from books, but any kind of reading you want.
What are some of the key points that you took from it?
I'm going to mirror the original commenter's recommendation, but also provide a bit more information.
The book, effectively, says "There are different levels of reading, which are skills, and those skills can be honed or improved. In addition, those skills may need to be applied differently to different types of books. The "most advanced" type of reading when, given multiple books with some related elements, you can form a coherent idea of those concepts based on the books you've read.
Here are a few high-level tips, just in terms of reading mechanics at a basic level that I use (If I recall inspired by the book in reference, I've pulled out my copy to see some of my marked notes as well):
(1) Read the first and last sentences of a paragraph first. At that point, decide whether to skip or read the entire paragraph.
(2) Try to read without subvocalizing the words in your head. Then, once the words aren't polluting your head, try to digest or consider the ideas as you go. I find having a pen handy helps with this.
(3) A "basic" reading has four questions to answer:What is the book about as a whole, what is being said and how, how true is the book, what is the significance of this information. These questions are the foundation to being able to talk about the book.
The book, effectively, says "There are different levels of reading, which are skills, and those skills can be honed or improved. In addition, those skills may need to be applied differently to different types of books. The "most advanced" type of reading when, given multiple books with some related elements, you can form a coherent idea of those concepts based on the books you've read.
Here are a few high-level tips, just in terms of reading mechanics at a basic level that I use (If I recall inspired by the book in reference, I've pulled out my copy to see some of my marked notes as well):
(1) Read the first and last sentences of a paragraph first. At that point, decide whether to skip or read the entire paragraph.
(2) Try to read without subvocalizing the words in your head. Then, once the words aren't polluting your head, try to digest or consider the ideas as you go. I find having a pen handy helps with this.
(3) A "basic" reading has four questions to answer:What is the book about as a whole, what is being said and how, how true is the book, what is the significance of this information. These questions are the foundation to being able to talk about the book.
Some of the advice in that book is difficult to implement in the age of electronic devices.
The blog post seems like a more applied, personalized and re-imagined version of "How to read a book". And shorter. I quote like it too.
Revised title: 'How to skim a nonfiction book'.
I like useful 'hacks', but...there is so much more to reading than speed and efficiency. Reading is not a quantitative game of accretion. And the author gets a lot wrong about how and why books are organized the way they are.
I like useful 'hacks', but...there is so much more to reading than speed and efficiency. Reading is not a quantitative game of accretion. And the author gets a lot wrong about how and why books are organized the way they are.
Commoditization of this form of reading is happening as well, the idea usually being something linked to reducing a book to 20 minutes of reading [0].
To me, this shows what little quantity of value these books actually have. That doesn't mean that the small number of useful ideas aren't of quality, just that they would have been better formatted as essays. Tragic that we can't find a way to align value with form.
[0] https://www.blinkist.com
To me, this shows what little quantity of value these books actually have. That doesn't mean that the small number of useful ideas aren't of quality, just that they would have been better formatted as essays. Tragic that we can't find a way to align value with form.
[0] https://www.blinkist.com
Blinkist honestly just never really helped me. I can't say I feel like anything really stuck.
The one way I thought about using it that would probably actually work reasonably well but I was too ADHD to stick with without structural support to keep me on task, would be listening to every single book in an entire category (there can be like 30 odd) and triangulating the core of the subject based off that. Taking copious notes on what shows up in multiple books etc.
That idea is basically the 'how to read a book' blinkist version. Though it kind of defeats the purpose of the nice quick summary I still like the idea. Maybe I should try it now that I could probably pull it off.
The one way I thought about using it that would probably actually work reasonably well but I was too ADHD to stick with without structural support to keep me on task, would be listening to every single book in an entire category (there can be like 30 odd) and triangulating the core of the subject based off that. Taking copious notes on what shows up in multiple books etc.
That idea is basically the 'how to read a book' blinkist version. Though it kind of defeats the purpose of the nice quick summary I still like the idea. Maybe I should try it now that I could probably pull it off.
Some Blinkist summaries contain most/all important ideas from the related book. Those books tend to have a simple set of ideas, illustrated by heaps of anecdote and examples.
But Blinkist also provides summaries for books that have a lot of ideas and depth (e.g. 'The book of why' by Judea Pearl) which would not benefit from being shortened. In these cases, a summary or blog post can whet your appetite, but isn't a substitute for the book.
But Blinkist also provides summaries for books that have a lot of ideas and depth (e.g. 'The book of why' by Judea Pearl) which would not benefit from being shortened. In these cases, a summary or blog post can whet your appetite, but isn't a substitute for the book.
I’ve read tons of ideas about how to extract “nuggets of information”, and reading more effectively, etc. Blinkist, for example, creates great and short summaries of books.
That’s all good and fine. But it does not work for me. I need to read through a book. I need it to take time. I don’t want the nuggets, I need it all. I need all of it to help me let the points sink in.
I might remember a book years later, but I cannot recall a Blinkist summary after even two weeks.
I do agree with the “reading of multiple books in parallel” part though. It’s a natural way of reading, when curiosity is the driver.
But what’s the rush? It’s not a competition (I think). Let’s just read the books like the author intended them to be read (which, for non-fiction often is suggested in the preface or similar).
I do agree with the “reading of multiple books in parallel” part though. It’s a natural way of reading, when curiosity is the driver.
But what’s the rush? It’s not a competition (I think). Let’s just read the books like the author intended them to be read (which, for non-fiction often is suggested in the preface or similar).
My objection to this is that I'm really bad at anticipating where interesting or useful information will come from. Many times I've been watching or reading something and find a offhand that is really useful to some part of my life.
If I only read the stuff I suspect of being useful before I start, there's less of a chance to be surprised by useful information.
Is that efficient? Bot really. It's enjoyable though.
If I only read the stuff I suspect of being useful before I start, there's less of a chance to be surprised by useful information.
Is that efficient? Bot really. It's enjoyable though.
Any non-reference book which can be "read" in this manner probably isn't worth engaging with anyways. This reminds me of that "Lamborghini in my garage" guy who claimed to be able to read a book in five minutes, and whose entire library was self-help / pop-psych / finance-bro fluff with no intellectual substance. Of course such material can be digested quickly.
This is an interesting approach and I can see the benefits for non-fiction books, as many of them have a certain degree of "fluff" anyway you want to skip quickly.
It does seem a technique that is more suited to physical books though, I don't see myself easily skipping to and back on an e-reader, but maybe I'm doing it wrong.
It does seem a technique that is more suited to physical books though, I don't see myself easily skipping to and back on an e-reader, but maybe I'm doing it wrong.
If you're a person who, while reading, is constantly arguing with the author and digging into their and your point of view, you may find this article and method of reading shallow. The method of "surgical reading" is most suited when you really don't care about the point of view of the author, don't want to have a dialogue or understand their deeper philosophy or context; you just, as he mentions, want to extract the 'knowledge', whatever that may be.
I gotta say, this method seems less relevant if you want to allow yourself to be changed by dialogue with an author. Reading a book or even essay by bell hooks in this way, for instance, seems like a tragic waste of time. You don't read bell hooks to 'extract a knowledge nugget', you read bell hooks to look in a mirror and see your own experiences differently.
I gotta say, this method seems less relevant if you want to allow yourself to be changed by dialogue with an author. Reading a book or even essay by bell hooks in this way, for instance, seems like a tragic waste of time. You don't read bell hooks to 'extract a knowledge nugget', you read bell hooks to look in a mirror and see your own experiences differently.
Is this easier than reading one book at a time, because that's the rate that I find difficult?
It is hugely effective to have multiple physical books around you on the same subject at different levels of detail and different explanation approaches.
It makes it very easy to switch books in midstream if you get stuck, gain more understanding from another book, and then come back to the original book with renewed insight.
It makes it very easy to switch books in midstream if you get stuck, gain more understanding from another book, and then come back to the original book with renewed insight.
Getting stuck... that's a killer. Now, if I've decided to learn something, I get at least 2 books on the same topic. If one author's explanation doesn't click for me, it's good to have that second book for a different explanation.
It can put books in perspective. Many books literally only have one chapter worth reading, many authors don’t have great pacing or have many chapters or blocks of pages that are not good.
If you grab a few books and go through the table of contents, and flip around or drop a book for a bit for another book, you’ll get a good sense of if the book you’re trying to consume is even good.
Basically destroys the notion of ‘curling up with a book’ and takes them off a pedestal.
If you grab a few books and go through the table of contents, and flip around or drop a book for a bit for another book, you’ll get a good sense of if the book you’re trying to consume is even good.
Basically destroys the notion of ‘curling up with a book’ and takes them off a pedestal.
This is how babies/kids learn init?
As in they jump around collecting nuggets and surprising people with what they have collected.
The advantage kids have is their brains are different (see Allison Gopnik + Explore vs Exploit Dilemma) and they are surrounded (hopefully) by people paying attention to what they are learning, correcting them when they get lost, nudging them in the right direction, making sure they are housed,fed and watered etc.
Same thing works out well with Adults when you place them in the safe caring confines of a research lab.
As in they jump around collecting nuggets and surprising people with what they have collected.
The advantage kids have is their brains are different (see Allison Gopnik + Explore vs Exploit Dilemma) and they are surrounded (hopefully) by people paying attention to what they are learning, correcting them when they get lost, nudging them in the right direction, making sure they are housed,fed and watered etc.
Same thing works out well with Adults when you place them in the safe caring confines of a research lab.
Well done emphasizing the value of the preface!
It always amazes me how little attention the preface gets from readers. It's the one place where the author gets to explain why the book exists, and why you should care. If you really want to understand what you could get from a book, pay close attention to the preface. And then maybe don't read the rest of it at all! You may learn from the preface that this is not the book for you, and that could save you a tremendous amount of time.
It always amazes me how little attention the preface gets from readers. It's the one place where the author gets to explain why the book exists, and why you should care. If you really want to understand what you could get from a book, pay close attention to the preface. And then maybe don't read the rest of it at all! You may learn from the preface that this is not the book for you, and that could save you a tremendous amount of time.
A lot of this technique seems to overlap with the classic book How to Read a Book by Adler & Doren.
The only part that differs is they approach with trying to get a big picture rather than focusing on the only the parts you need.
I tend to agree with the Surgical Reading on focusing on the parts you need. Time is at such a premium that just in time learning is a great strategy.
The only part that differs is they approach with trying to get a big picture rather than focusing on the only the parts you need.
I tend to agree with the Surgical Reading on focusing on the parts you need. Time is at such a premium that just in time learning is a great strategy.
I'd add "read better books" - if you need to surgically excise info, it's not a good book in the first place.
This technique has potential. I kickstarted my interest in machine learning by going to the university library, picking a book with an interesting title and reading a random section for about half an hour, before fleeing to classes. I had a quite good overview by the end of the semester.
I come across many interesting books, and I read few of them cover to cover. But rarely has there been a book which didn't add something meaningful and useful to my life from just reading one random page of it.
12 books at once seems like more unnecessary hyper-optimization to me.
It's like the people that watch YouTube videos at 2x speed to gain more time for...what, exactly? Reading 12 books at once?
Our society needs to dial it back a bit.
It's like the people that watch YouTube videos at 2x speed to gain more time for...what, exactly? Reading 12 books at once?
Our society needs to dial it back a bit.
Why not save yourself all the trouble and read a in-depth review or Wikipedia summary/Cliffnotes of the book? Doesn't seem like this technique goes all that much deeper.
This is somewhat similar to how scientific articles are typically read.
Love the post and the process
Every year I try to read 100 books, and up to a dozen in tandem. I've succeeded the past few years, but this year I'm a bit doubtful as I've taken on "Why You Like It: The Science and Culture of Musical Taste", a 720 page behemoth.
My unsolicited advice for how to read 100 books a year, while still working full-time and fulfilling other important life-roles? Don't watch YouTube/TV/movies and minimize time spent reading articles. Have Alexa read kindle e-books to you when you're on the go. And if you aren't enjoying a book, drop it and find something you can tear through.
In case you're interested, here's my currently-reading list on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/2589152-jason-comely?s...
Back to reading books!
My unsolicited advice for how to read 100 books a year, while still working full-time and fulfilling other important life-roles? Don't watch YouTube/TV/movies and minimize time spent reading articles. Have Alexa read kindle e-books to you when you're on the go. And if you aren't enjoying a book, drop it and find something you can tear through.
In case you're interested, here's my currently-reading list on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/2589152-jason-comely?s...
Back to reading books!
Without trying to start a flame war, the author is not accurate in what is in (or not in) the Bible.
I think that the list "Not parts of the bible" is meant to represent index entries that are general topics that are spread over the whole text, as opposed to the "Parts of the Bible" list which are index entries representing contiguous named chunks (Old Testament, Genesis). I agree it is confusingly phrased.
[deleted]
Hmm... accurate point. There are several items in his "not in the Bible" list that are most definitely mentioned, several times!
I think they're looking for the exact term, so in that way it's not in the bible even if what the exact term refers to actually is.
As I said in my other comment, it's clear from the context that by "parts of the Bible" they mean named contiguous sections, and by "not parts of the Bible" they mean topics that are raised intermittently thoughout. So there's no homosexuality "part of the Bible" just in the sense that there's no Book of Homosexuality.
It wouldn't make sense to demand an exact term when you're looking at something that was originally written in a different language (like the Bible, which was mostly written in Ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek) because whether or not that word is exactly matched depends on how it's translated rather than something inherent in the original work.
It wouldn't make sense to demand an exact term when you're looking at something that was originally written in a different language (like the Bible, which was mostly written in Ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek) because whether or not that word is exactly matched depends on how it's translated rather than something inherent in the original work.
Probably will get downvoted for this, but I think the halo around reading books is overrated. You can gather ample amount of knowledge just as well via a series of essays online, podcasts, and sometimes even twitter threads.
Most of the books, for example, introduce a radical new idea and then elaborate on that needlessly for 400 pages. I found Sapiens to be one such book.
Even if the idea/premise is insightful, there is often a lot of redundancy in the pages. We should value brevity more.
Of course, this might not apply to all books. Textbooks/Reference books can happily coexist with online tutorials/blogs. Even certain nonfiction books (Thinking Fast and Slow comes to mind) might be best presented in a book format.
Most of the books, for example, introduce a radical new idea and then elaborate on that needlessly for 400 pages. I found Sapiens to be one such book.
Even if the idea/premise is insightful, there is often a lot of redundancy in the pages. We should value brevity more.
Of course, this might not apply to all books. Textbooks/Reference books can happily coexist with online tutorials/blogs. Even certain nonfiction books (Thinking Fast and Slow comes to mind) might be best presented in a book format.
What radical new idea did Sapiens introduce? I ended up not liking it as much as I thought I would because I expected it to be little more concentrated on known factors around human evolution, but it ended up providing a lot of conjecture and best-guesses.
I think some people that see online essays and podcasts as a more efficient way to consume information might ironically be the most "orthodox" sort of readers. Most well-written non-fiction books provide a clear index, a table of contents that makes the process of the book clear, and introductory matter in each chapter that summarizes things for you. If you want a certain piece of information, you can go into the book and get out within 5 minutes. You don't owe every book you pick up a cover-to-cover read.
Highly recommend "How to Read a Book". It calls the author's process of "surgical reading" "syntopical reading", though they might have slightly different meanings in reality.
I think some people that see online essays and podcasts as a more efficient way to consume information might ironically be the most "orthodox" sort of readers. Most well-written non-fiction books provide a clear index, a table of contents that makes the process of the book clear, and introductory matter in each chapter that summarizes things for you. If you want a certain piece of information, you can go into the book and get out within 5 minutes. You don't owe every book you pick up a cover-to-cover read.
Highly recommend "How to Read a Book". It calls the author's process of "surgical reading" "syntopical reading", though they might have slightly different meanings in reality.
The only thing I can tell you from experience: Have the self confidence to drop a book, read what interests you, not what is on some "list of books" you have to work through. And take your time reading. I learned it the hard way, but I'd rather drop 10 books, find one extremely insightful, and read it slowly and carefully and twice if I have to than speed read 20 books and remember nothing.
I am extremely doubtful about "hacks" like this ; glad if it works for him, my experience is nothing of the sorts will ever work for me.