So he seems to approach reading primarily from a "how is this going to improve my life", usually from some sort of productivity-enhancing, "always be hustling" mindset. So I'm not surprised at all that he's found diminishing returns in this endeavor.
Don't mean to sound too harsh, but I actually did read his entire post and throughout the whole thing I kept thinking "Maybe try chilling TF out and just reading something you enjoy."
I stopped right there.
Unless all one does is read fiction, I don’t think hitting seriously diminishing returns or running out of top-tier material are likely problems. Mere mortals with other interests and hobbies who achieve low-tens of books a year, and not all in that meaty very-high-quality bunch, need not worry.
Why not read into a nonfiction topic just for interest's sake, like a layman's accessible book on quantum physics, or the battles of WWII, or the development of Western music, or whatever topic makes one just go "Hmm, that's cool, I want to find out more about that."
So yes it's obviously not infinite, but I imagine it's at least 10,000 and that's enough for anyone.
As long as you keep changing, the quantity of books to read is infinite. I like the analogy of the article that books are like a stream and just dip in and pick the one of the moment and let the rest float by. It’s only people who don’t change enough who consume too much from the same point in the stream and feel the effects of water sickness.
Though actually. Stopping to think about it now for the first time I think I'm about there at this point. It has definitely changed what sorts of books I seek out and what I expect to get from them. But I still find reading fiction rewarding.
I don't think these books are bad and without ideas or merit, but many of them show an idea in the first two chapters and then repeat it for the rest of the book. It's like an expanded blog post with adequate but average writing. Reading 40 of them in a year is going to leave most people not remembering anything significant. Kind of like people that say they travelled to 40 countries in a year. You're not going to get anything other than surface-level understanding and some jetlag.
Fiction on the other hand… I think I average 40 a year without it being an effort at all. Just read a bit in bed before sleeping and on holidays. That's not an abnormal number for anyone who reads for leisure.
Was the author conflating the two? I can't imagine properly processing the contents of 40 non-fiction books in a year.
A few days ago, I tried but failed to remember the name of a (main) character from Narcotopia.
When I'm reading, I'm so immersed in the story that I feel I'm living it. It brings me immense pleasure. But, to get the most out of it, I think I have to switch to studying them in detail, taking notes, etc.
Of course, I'll still read for pleasure, but my reading will have to slow down so I can squeeze more out of it. I hope some other people on HN see this comment and consider it too.
It’s all partial and temporary. A long-lived cathedral made of one’s knowledge is unachievable. It’s a scrap-book with pieces and pages always falling out and you can never collect them all because you’re late for the train and have to hurry on.
The improving value of reading 40 of those per year versus 0 is approximately identical, so unless you’re finding them entertaining, there’s not much reason to do it.
Expanding one's area of literary interest is key here. Look at what Bill Gates does with his quarterly reading list - so many different genres, topics, etc. Keeps things fresh at the very least!
They give the example of reading many books about exercise vs reading one book and doing the exercises it describes. The latter will end up fitter than the former.
I can give another example: take 2 novice chess players. Have one of them read 40 books in a year without playing chess. Have the other read 1 book, then spend the rest of the year playing chess. Who do you think will be a better chess player?
Non-fiction is, like most things, best done in moderation. Fiction works differently on the mind. To me, it's more fun. The plot can be summarized of course, but the diction, structure and unfolding cannot be summarized without losing a great deal of the experience of reading.
Lost me right at the first sentence. It's inferior to believe that books are a fundamental ingredient in allaying mental inferiority. Most knowledge is tacit and comes from doing, not reading. The hero who confronts the lion gains wisdom along the way. The nerd in his library merely thinks he's gaining wisdom.
As a parent - and as a former child, too - I'm all too familiar with the childish attitude that you don't need to learn from the lived experience of others. If every adult in your life is telling you not to jump off of the trampoline, you still think "I bet _I_ can jump off the trampoline! What do they know?" And one or two broken legs later, you just gained wisdom the hard way.
Most people outgrow this mentality, and learn to consider and respect sources of experience besides their own.
The caveat there is that I follow Naval Ravikant's advice and if I'm not liking a book, I either skip around to the parts I care about or I discard it and move onto another.
I've discarded a number of reputable, oft-recommended books because they did not click with me, such as Taleb's books, Think and Grow Rich, etc etc.
