Redefining "reading".
Jan. 14th, 2009 09:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elwenI've had to redefine my concept of "reading" this semester. I'd started reading a fair amount of non-fiction lately, and I've been finding it a real slog. Even though I chose to read the first few books (The World Without Us, The Future of the Internet--And How to Stop It, and The World in Six Songs: How the Musical Brain Created Human Nature -- all highly recommended, BTW) because they were on topics interesting to me, and I absorbed a lot of interesting information from them, and am generally glad I read them... they were still really hard to get through.
Then I started this semester. One of my classes is Law and Society in Japan, and I guess it's more of a sociology/humanities class than a law class. And the prof talked about how there's a lot of reading, but it's like undergrad reading, where there's a ton of it, and no one really expects you to get through all of it and absorb all the details, but you at least skim, and read the headings and conclusions and whatnot.
Well. I never really took those kinds of classes in undergrad, since I went to Tech. But one class, that I audited, was kind of like that (the totally awesome class on the history of Vikings). But still, I managed that class more by not reading than by "reading" intelligently.
So I tried to take what the prof said, about skimming and only reading the "important" parts, to heart. It helped that the second reading assignment consisted of an entire book that we had to read over the weekend. I also had to finish another book that weekend, because it was due the next Tuesday. So I started skipping anecdotes that seemed pointless. And it helped a lot.
Some part of me still feels guilty about it, like I'm not really "reading" the book if I don't plod obediently through the entire text, the way I read fiction. (And, I think, the way you have to read fiction, when you're trying to enjoy the story and actually are reading for pleasure.) But I guess I am slowly coming to terms with the idea that non-fiction is different, and that, unlike well-organized scientific papers and legal briefs, non-fiction is just wandering and disorganized and full of stories that are much longer than their morals deserve. With all three of the books I listed above, my major criticism after reading them has been: too disorganized. They were all more or less mindblowing in some of their theses, but I think they could have been so much more so if they'd just organized things in a better way. In a more I'm-trying-to-persuade-a-judge-to-rule-in-my-favor-by-getting-his-clerk-to-like-and-understand-my-brief way, perhaps. (Sadly, my comments hold for The Future of the Internet, which is written by a lawyer, or at least a legal academic.)
Anyway, I will have lots more practice this semester with this new concept that I will call "efficient non-fiction reading". All of my classes but one are reading-intensive -- not the wisest combination for my final semester, perhaps -- and the reading material is different in each, too. I get: historical and sociological research papers (Law and Society in Japan), scientific research papers and textbook excerpts (Fundamentals of Neuroscience for Non-Bioscientists), and business books and social science research papers (Negotiation), in addition to the usual legal fare of cases, statutes, and treatises. I think it took me almost all of my two summers of doing legal work to learn how to read unedited cases efficiently, but those are kind of unique.
[I was planning on talking about my classes and their reading-intensive-ness in a separate entry, but that's alright. I'll talk more about them in other contexts -- like their fluffiness or seriousness -- some other time.]
Then I started this semester. One of my classes is Law and Society in Japan, and I guess it's more of a sociology/humanities class than a law class. And the prof talked about how there's a lot of reading, but it's like undergrad reading, where there's a ton of it, and no one really expects you to get through all of it and absorb all the details, but you at least skim, and read the headings and conclusions and whatnot.
Well. I never really took those kinds of classes in undergrad, since I went to Tech. But one class, that I audited, was kind of like that (the totally awesome class on the history of Vikings). But still, I managed that class more by not reading than by "reading" intelligently.
So I tried to take what the prof said, about skimming and only reading the "important" parts, to heart. It helped that the second reading assignment consisted of an entire book that we had to read over the weekend. I also had to finish another book that weekend, because it was due the next Tuesday. So I started skipping anecdotes that seemed pointless. And it helped a lot.
Some part of me still feels guilty about it, like I'm not really "reading" the book if I don't plod obediently through the entire text, the way I read fiction. (And, I think, the way you have to read fiction, when you're trying to enjoy the story and actually are reading for pleasure.) But I guess I am slowly coming to terms with the idea that non-fiction is different, and that, unlike well-organized scientific papers and legal briefs, non-fiction is just wandering and disorganized and full of stories that are much longer than their morals deserve. With all three of the books I listed above, my major criticism after reading them has been: too disorganized. They were all more or less mindblowing in some of their theses, but I think they could have been so much more so if they'd just organized things in a better way. In a more I'm-trying-to-persuade-a-judge-to-rule-in-my-favor-by-getting-his-clerk-to-like-and-understand-my-brief way, perhaps. (Sadly, my comments hold for The Future of the Internet, which is written by a lawyer, or at least a legal academic.)
Anyway, I will have lots more practice this semester with this new concept that I will call "efficient non-fiction reading". All of my classes but one are reading-intensive -- not the wisest combination for my final semester, perhaps -- and the reading material is different in each, too. I get: historical and sociological research papers (Law and Society in Japan), scientific research papers and textbook excerpts (Fundamentals of Neuroscience for Non-Bioscientists), and business books and social science research papers (Negotiation), in addition to the usual legal fare of cases, statutes, and treatises. I think it took me almost all of my two summers of doing legal work to learn how to read unedited cases efficiently, but those are kind of unique.
[I was planning on talking about my classes and their reading-intensive-ness in a separate entry, but that's alright. I'll talk more about them in other contexts -- like their fluffiness or seriousness -- some other time.]
no subject
Date: 2009-01-18 10:45 am (UTC)Some of the nonfiction stuff might not be well organized because the central idea isn't well organized enough either, or it's so simple that there's not much more to expostulate on after it's been introduced. But I really ought to read more in my spare time, and pleasure reading (of books) is something I haven't done in a while.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-19 08:06 am (UTC)I'm not sure where Neuroscience will go. It's kind of a survey of the subject, I think. Kind of fluffy. The only downside is she wants us to finish readings 24 hours in advance of class, so we can post questions and she can incorporate the answers into her lesson plans. Tough for a procrastinator like me.