How to Read a Book

How to Read a Book Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren Three kinds of reading:

Inspectional
Analytical
Syntopical

p 50 Three kinds of note taking:

Structural: Based on inspectional reading - not usually getting into the substance
Conceptual: Based on analytical reading - "answers to questions about the truth or significance of the book"
Dialectical: The "shape of the discussion" between different authors

p. 62 Classifying books Rule 1. State what kind of book it is

Fiction
Nonfiction

Practical

Manuals,textbooks,oratory or ethical works, applying knowledge to human problems

Practical works are usually hortatory, trying to persuade the reader to take the recommended action, although not all hortatory works (propaganda, etc) are practical, in the sense of analyzing and applying knowledge to human problems. Will usually give rules for doing something

Theoretical

Knowledge for its own sake Pigeonholing books can be difficult because words mean different things in different disciplines. {This is especially true for hypermedia, which both employs and refers to many different disciplines. It may be necessary to incorporate the analytical reader's practice of summarizing a book (p.81) into a hypertext which links to primary sources, or to connected worlds whose terms are too idiosyncratic to unify or neutralize.}

p. 75 Analytical reading
"X-Raying a book"
Every book has a "skeleton".
2nd rule of analytical reading: State the unity of the book in a single sentence or a short paragraph.
3rd rule: Set forth the major parts, and show how these are organized into a whole. Bad books are harder to read, because the reader has to do the organizing work the author should have done. the best, most readable books are those with an intelligible structure. {true for hypermedia as well}
p.84 Outlining a book
Formula:

State Unity
State major parts, with brief descriptions
Break down parts into sections, with descriptions
Break down sections into points

You don't have to follow the apparent structure of the book - you can apply different criteria or categories. You have to look beneath the surface to discover the real structure.
{relate to Tufte on epidemiology in Visual Explanations? Degas on the tyranny of vision? Certainly vital to analyzing works which don't announce their structure: movies, paintings, poems. Also works where the structure is so explicit or arbitrary as to be almost meaningless, as in popular or folk song verses or other very traditional structures}
{Do example on Rahillian gesture analysis}
{Relate to Benjamin quote about card files. Hypertext, especially on a net, is all about dissection your own and other's work, and discovering or imposing new structures.}
{Hypertext has structure - usually more complex than linear. Either may be more or less explicit. Hypertext does not offer "liberation" from structure - only structure based on different assumptions. The connection with speech is much less, for instance, and many of the oral devices used to accomplish transitions, classify ideas and lead the reader from one point to the next, which persist in written text, are accomplished by other means in hypertext}
p. 90 Skeleton and flesh
The "flesh" - the "writing out" of the outline - gives life to the skeleton {Relate to Benjamin quote?}
Unity, Clarity, Coherence Rule 4: Find out what the author's problems were.
pp. 93-94 List of theoretical and practical questions
Coming to terms with an author
The term is the basic element of communicable knowledge
Communication requires that two parties use the same words with the same meanings. Words can have many meanings, but a term is a word used unambiguously. Rule 5: Find the important words and through them come to terms with the author One word can stand for several terms, depending on context. Determining which are the important words in a passage is paradoxical, because you must understand the passage to grasp the importance of certain words.The words that give you trouble may well be the important ones.
{Hypertext offers great possibilities for cross disciplinary work, but different terms will cause confusion is not translated. The book mentions philosophy as rife with private terminologies, but the computer world must be the worst}
{Relate to screen metaphor issues: the metaphor may introduce confusing terms of its own.(ui.html, bonime.html, design.html)}
{What I'm getting from this reading is not so much new concepts but coherent sets of terms}
pp. 107-108 Defining terms. To find the meaning of a word you don't understand, you have to build it out of the familiar words in the context.
{This is constant problem in computer dom, where the alien and abstract world of the computer has to be made accessible through analogy with familiar concepts - desktop, files, folders, etc. There is a retroactive effect whereby the traditional meanings of the words are affected by the new meanings.The words we use to describe our minds - memory, for instance, are tinged with the cyber-meaning. [retrologs]
We tend to model the things that we don't understand -our minds, the universe -in terms of whatever the current technology is that we do (sort of) understand. {This takes us back [a link opportunity, there] to the problem of bridging inferences, etc.}
p.114 A proposition is an assertion by the author.Propositions must be supported by reasons.The word "because" signifies a reason. Arguments are indicated by "if...then", "since this", "therefore that" etc. An argument is a series of statements providing the grounds for what is to be concluded.
{Relate to reflexivity and "neutrality" or self analysis, and to closure? [both Jane Yellowlees Douglas]}
The premises are always the source of the conclusion. terms>propositions>arguments or words>sentence>paragraphs.
{the hypertext node is analogous to a paragraph, although it may consist of more or less than one paragraph, and may not even be text. It should be built up from its constituent parts, though, and fit into the larger scheme the same way.}
p. 117 No one-to-one relation between words and terms.Not every sentence is a proposition. Some are questions. Propositions are answers to questions. Even declarative sentences do not map one-on-one to propositions. Their terms may be ambiguous. A compound sentence may contain more than one proposition.
{connect with cognition.html - are they using the term "proposition" the same way?}
p.121 Key Sentences. Major affirmation or denials, and supporting reasons. These may be indicated by introductory statements, text "labels", or typographical devices. For the reader, the state of being perplexed may signal an important passage.
{In hypertext, key sentences or propositions may be indicated by a high position in the hierarchy of layers ["inverted pyramid"] or by repetition throughout the text [because of the need for self contained nodes], or by any number of graphic devices.
p. 123 -124 An argument is a movement of thought. It may begin with the conclusion or with the evidence, but it has to have a beginning, a middle and an end.
{What does this mean for hypertext?

Should it be possible to bail out of an argument in the middle by following a link? Should "progressive" links which carry the argument forward be distinguished from "associative" or "digressive" links which might lead the reader into a completely different train of thought?
Is it useful to sort out propositions, objections, refutations, so you have to follow a link to get to each part of the argument?
Are all (expository) texts arguments?
Are arguments always explicitly stated?: They may be implicit in a text which appears to be a "neutral" reference work.

} p.126. Seeing through words to the proposition. State the proposition in other words, or give an example. {"in other words..." or pictures, etc. The explainer uses this device, as does the reader to test understanding.} p. 128 Arguments in a book may not be neatly contained in individual paragraphs. As a reader, you might have to construct the argument by assembling sentences or propositions from different paragraphs. p. 130 Author summaries. {This is relevant to hypermedia. The connection across paragraphs can be "embarrassingly literal"} p. 135. Find the author's solutions. p. 140 Teachability is an active virtue. p. 152 - Agreeing or disagreeing with an author. It is important to understand the argument before judging. {in hypertext, more can done by anticipating the reader's objections, but ensuring that all the parts are read is harder.} p. 173. The great books are involved in a prolonged conversation. p. 175. Commentaries should be read after the original. pp. 176-177 Using reference works.

Syntopic reading: Reading a subject across several authors need to come to terms with each author p. 309 Difficulty of determining which books are about the "same subject" p.313. How do you know which books address your topic without reading them? Inspectional reading. p. 315 "The skillful inspectional reader does more than classify a book in his mental card catalogue, and achieve a superficial knowledge of its contents. ...he discovers... whether the book says something inportant about his subject or not." Syntopical reading: Five steps

Finding the relevant passages: it is you and your concerns that are to be served, not the book's. Your purpose may vary from the author's.
Bringing the authors to terms.: All authors will not agree on terms and oganization, and possibly none will suit your purpose.You may have to translate.
{This relates to Benjamin quote: simply interlocking card files would lead to conflicting terms}
{Could works be seen as "compiled", with "translators" to unpack them?}
{Idea of interactive "coming to terms" - you could theoretically scan someone's work for a certain word and replace it with another, thus making the author come to terms with you! The legal ramifications of this -left over from the monolithic book, tend to preempt the exploration of the conceptual implications} {In this text, I have to deal with different meanings of "closure": the ending of a work, and the completion of an idea by the reader or viewer.}
Getting the questions clear: You need to create neutral propositions, and the best way to do this is to frame questions and look to the authors for answers.
Defining the issues.: Authors are more likely to differ over conceptions of the question than views on the subject. If they only disagree over answers to already define questions, you job easy, but trivial.
Analyze the discussion.