About book How To Read A Book: The Classic Guide To Intelligent Reading (1972)
كنت ابحث منذ فترة ليست وجيزة عن كتاب يعلمني كيف اقرأ .. لأني كنت ابحث عن اجوبه لأسئله صعبه , ومهمه جدا بالنسبه لي .. ماذا يجب ان اقرأ , ماذا اريد ان اقرأ .. و السؤال المهم كيف اختار كتـبي ؟فأنا عندما أدخل مكتبه , لا اعرف ماذا اريد .. فأضيع بين الكتب , استمتع بالنظر اليها واتمنى لو كان عقلي يشبه الكمبيوتر فأخزن به كل هذة الكتب جميعا , فجميعها له شكل جذّاب ! و عديد من الكتب في المكتبه كتبوها كتّاب لهم شهرة واسعه و اسمائهم تلمع في عيني ! فتعميني و لا استطيع ان ارى جيدا مالذي اختارة ومالذي يجب ان اختارة ؟ وفوق ذلك كله لا اشعر بذاتي التي حتما لها ميلا نحو نوع معين من الكتب ..فأنا ادخل المكتبه بهدف شراء كتب , لكن أي كتب ؟ لا ادري .. واخرج منها بـ 5 كتب على الاقل ..هذا خطأ فادحو سأكتب هنا التوضيـح او الخلاصه الهامه جدا ..{ عندما تشتري انت كتابا , يجب ان يكون بهدف معيـن انت تحددة , لأن وجود هذا الهدف سيحدد طريقه قرائتك للكتاب }و سيجيب على الاسئله. هل هو كتاب لدراسه موضوع معين ؟ هل اشتريته للتسليه ؟ او هل اشتريته ليكون مرجع ؟كتاب موتيمر آدلر - كيف تقرأ كتابا - الذي يقع في373 صفحات هو كتاب تقليدي \ كلاسيكي . مرجع ممتاز يعلمك كيف تقرأ كل شيء من القصه الى الكتب الفلسفيه وكتب التاريخ والكتب التطبيقيه واذا تعلمتها تكون قادرا على تطبيق نفس المبادى على كل انواع النصوص من مقالات و رسائل البريد .. فلكل نوع منها طريقه خاصه للقراءة .. واسئله معينه تطرح وقت القراءة وحوار يجب ان يجرى مع الكتاب , فلا نستطيع قراءة الشعر مثل ما نقرأ كتب الرياضيات .. او نقرأ كتب الفلسفه مثلما نقرأ كتب التاريخ ؟ لأن بإختلاف المفاهيم تختلف الأهداف ...وهنا بعض العبارات التي وضعت تحتها خطاً لأني وجدت انها هامه .."المعرفه هي شرط اساسي للفهم "" القراءة هي الانتقال من مرحله الفهم الأقل الى الفهم الأكثر .. ""القراءة هي فن امساك كل انواع المعلومات على افضل وجه ممكن "" لكل كتاب هدف معين يريد الكاتب ايصاله اليك , ويعتمد نجاح القراءة على مدى تلقي كل شيء هدف الكاتب الى ايصاله ""فنحن عندما نقرأ فإننا نبحث عن الفهم الأعمق وليس فقط تكديس المعلومات وتذكرها "" التنوّر لا يتم الا عندما تعرف بالاضافه الى ماقاله الكاتب ماذا يعني بما قاله ولماذا قاله ؟ "و ايضا من المعلومات المهمه التي قرأتها, كان يقول موتيمر اننا عندما نقرأ كتابا صعباً لا يجب علينا ان نقف امام كل قطعه ولانتحرك من امامها لكي نفهمها ,بل يجب علينا أن نقرأ الكتاب بسرعه واحدة وننتهي منه ثم نقرأه من جديد لكي نحدد مواضع الصعوبه التي واجهتنا .لأن بالقراءة التاليه سأكون قد تمكنت من اماكن الصعوبه وسأكون قادرة على فهم واستيعاب معلومات أكثر ..من الامور الهامه التي نوّرت عقلي ان اتعلم الاتيكيت الفكري وايضا نقد الكتاب , فلا استطيع ابدا ابدا ان انقد كتابا وانا لست في نفس مستوى الكاتب المعرفي لأني في هذة الحاله اقل معرفه منه فأنا لا افهمه فهما تاما لكي انقدة ..ولكن نحن بالقراءة نرتقي , فإذا قرأنا نفس الكتاب مرات عديدة و قرأت الكتب و المراجع التي استند اليها الكاتب سأكون قد توصلت الى تفاهم من الكاتب وأكون في هذة المرحله في نفس مستوى الكاتب لأني استطيع ان افهم ما يقوله واستطيع بذلك اناقش مايقوله . وهذا مايسمى بالتأهيل .. وهي مرتبه اكون بها مأهله للنقد ..*لا تحكم على اي كتاب بأنه لم يعجبك ولا ترفض افكارة بدون فهم لأن ذلك يسمى حماقه و وقاحه .. وفي الطرف المقابل لا تقبل كل الأفكار بدون ان تعالجها بطريقتك وتفهمها لأنك لو قبلتها بدون فهم فإن ذلك يسمى بالسذاجه .. ! لأن القراءة اساسا كما اسلفت هي الانتقال من الفهم الاقل الى الفهم الأكثر ..ونحن هنا نحرّك هذا العقل قليلا الذي اوشك على قتله الخمول .. هل تذكرون عندما قلت اني سأترك التلفاز في تحدي بيني وبين نفسي لمدة 100 يوم لا اراه ؟ حسنا.. لازلت مصرة على التحدي هذا .. والحمدلله اني وجدت ما يدعمني في كتاب موتيمر .. حيث انه تحدث عن المعلومات التي تتسرب الى القلب من دون ان تمر الى العقل فيصاب العقل بذلك بالخمول ! والقراءة تكسر هذا الخمول وتعيد هذا العقل للحياه ... هذا هو سر القراءة ..وهنا اذكر مقوله فرانز كافكا حين قال :"على الكتاب أن يكون الفأس التي تكسر البحر المتجمد فينا"انت لن تفهم الكتاب اذا قرأته ببطء شديد و حتى ان قرأته بسرعه شديدة فأنت لن تفهمه , لكن فن القراءة هي فن استخدام السرعات المختلفه في القراءة ومعرفه متى استخدمها .. وفي هذا الكتاب يشرح مورتيمر سرعات القراءة وانواع القراءة ويتطرق الى طبقاتها ..ولا تستطيع ان تحكم على كتاب بأنه جيّد ام سيء من الفصل الأول من قرائتك له ..! فعليك ان تتروى وان تكون صورة عن الكتاب وعن هيكله الذي بين يديك ومعرفه بالضبط ماذا يريد الكاتب ان يقول ؟ ولماذا يقوله ؟ علينا ان نفهم وان ندرك ماللذي يُقال قبل ان نتطرق بحكمنا على الكتاب .في هذا الكتاب .. يعلمنا موتيمر كيف نكوّن فهم اكثر من المادة النصيّه التي امامنا ان كانت فلسفه ؟ ام كانت مادة تاريخيه او علميه او تطبيقيه ؟ وكيف نحقق فهم اعمق و كيف نستخرج كل مافي هذة المادة من علومه بل كيف نعالجها ؟ومن هنا .. من هذا الاساس .. تم تقسيم الكتب الى نوعين .. الى كتب تفسيريه و كتب تخيليه .. الكتب التفسيريه هي الكتب التي تشرح الحقائق مثل الرياضيات والعلوم المختلفه وكذلك الكتب التطبيقيه هي تندرج تحتها لأن وظيفتها هي التفسير و التوضيح ونستخرج منها الحقائق الهامه و تكون المعلومه مبسطه وواضحه ومعروضه بشكل يسهل الفهم .. هذا ان افترضنا ان الكاتب كان كاتبا جيّدا ..اما بالنسبه للكتب التخيليه هي مشروحه في فصل كبير ( كيف تقرأ الأدب التخيلي ) وتندرج تحتها كتب الشعر والقصه و المسرحيه وايضا شرح للقصائد الغنائيه ..بصراحه وجدته شرحا واضحا جدا و بسيط على الفهم ومهم ايضا حيث ان اغلب ما اقرأه هي القصه ! فأنا اهوى القصص ..ومن هنا اصطدت هذة المعلومه القيّمه في فقرة - كيف تقرأ القصه - .. ووجدت بها اجابه على اسئلتي ..القصه او الادب التخيلي عموما لا يُقرأ كما يُقرأ العمل التفسيري .. حيث اننا لانبحث عن الحقائق والنظريات هنا بل نتبع سير الشخصيات في الحبكه .. ونتبعها الى ان نصل الى ذروة القصه وان نعرف ماذا حدث بعد الذروة ..علينا ان نقرأ القصه بسرعه بدون ان نتوقف عند اي من فصولها حتى لو اعجبنا ! .. وان لانطيل الانتظار , علينا ان نتواجد داخل القصه ونكون مع الشخصيات ونسمعها كما لو كنا نزور صديقا مريضا فنعطف عليه ..!علينا ان نقرأها بسرعه تامه وبإنهماك كلي وان نتسخرج الحبكه التي نسجها الكاتب و العالم الذي خلقه الكاتب لشخصياته ..لأننا غالبا عندما ننتهي من قصه ما فإننا نكون سعيدين .. ولكننا لا ندري لماذا ؟؟ لكن اذا طبقنا القواعد البسيطه هذة في قراءة القصه سنكون سعيدين والاهم اننا سنعرف لماذا ؟ ومالذي اعجبنا بالتحديد من القصه ..!وهنا احب ان اكتب مسؤوليه القارئ ؟ماهي مسؤوليه القارئ ؟قبل اوضح هذا المفهوم يجب علي ان اكتب هنا الخطأ التي كنت اقع به قبل ان اعدله , كنت اذا قرأت كتابا , ( تذكروا هنا ماقلته من قبل , بأن الكتاب الذي بين يدي لم يكن بهدف محدد ) , اقرأه واذا انتهيت منه اكون سعيدة بأني انتهيت منه وبأني قد حصلت على معلومه جيدة علميه او اثنتين او معلومه تاريخيه .. ولا انظر الى اسلوب الكاتب ولا الى شيء فقط الى القصه المكتوبه . فأنا كنت مبهمه حتى في نظرتي الى الكتاب ..لكن بعد قراءة كتاب موتيمر اكتشفت ان هناك مسؤوليه يتحملها القارئ على عاتقه اذا قرأ كتابا وهذة المسؤوليه تقع في تحقيق الهدف الذي من اجله قرأت الكتاب .. فإذا كنت اقرأ كتابا من الكتب التفسيريه يجب علي محاوله تكوين الفكرة التي يحاول الكاتب بجهد ايصالها .. فالكتاب لم يُكتب الا ليُقرأ .. ومجهود الكتابه يجب ان يقابله مجهود آخر من القارئ وهو مجهود القراءة .. فالكتاب ليس مجرد كلمات مكتوبه بلا هدف .. بل انه مكتوب لأجل ان ينوّر عقلا وان ينشر فكرة او افكار ..والقراءة هو فن التقاط هذة المعلومات والأفكار العديدة ..اريدكم ان تعذورني على عدم ترتيب هذة المعلومات وفوضويتها ..اذا كنتم تائهين مثلي في عالم القراءة فهذا المرشد سيعلمكم ماتريدون ان تعرفوه ..اتمنى لكم الاستفادة منه .. لا غنى عنه لأي قارىء لأنه نادرا مانرى كتابا بشرح كيف نقرأ الفلسفه او كيف نقرأ الادب التخيلي ؟انا لم انتهي من قراءة الكتاب كله بل بقي لي فصلا صغيرا ..وـــ سلام !
How do you read a book?Look at the cover, probably glance at the blurb; run your eye down the table of contents, perhaps; possibly rifle through the book... then plunge right in into Chapter One.Right?Wrong! According to Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren, the authors of How to Read a Book.According to them, this is only the first level of reading, called “Elementary” reading: and this is the only level the majority of readers in this world have reached. They posit three more levels: “Inspectional”, “Analytical” and “Syntopic”, each one more advanced than the previous. The major portion of the book is devoted to analytic reading, followed by brief exposition on the syntopic. It is the aim of the authors to make each reader of this tome into an analytic reader at least, if not a syntopic one: it is my opinion that they only succeed partially, but let’s go into that after analysing each of the levels as defined by the authors.Elementary reading we have already seen. In inspectional reading, you first skim the book as a whole; give it a “once-over”, as it is. The authors, ever practical, suggest six steps to do this – most of them self-evident and what any serious reader usually does with an expository book (this book is mostly about reading expository material and of limited value in reading literature and poetry, but more about that later). The steps are:1.tRead the title and the preface2.tStudy the table of contents3.tCheck the index4.tRead the blurb5.tLook at the main chapters6.tSkim the book, reading it here and thereNext, read the book through fast, without getting stuck at the difficult places. If the book deserves our serious attention, we can come back to those difficult places in our next reading. The advantage of this “rapid-fire” approach is that we do not waste time on a book which deserves only a superficial reading. In the authors’ own words: “Every book should be read no more slowly than it deserves, and no more quickly than you can read it with satisfaction and comprehension.”Analytical ReadingThe next level, analytical reading, requires the reader to be demanding: the more you demand, the more you can extract out of a book. To do this, one has to ask four questions:1.tWhat is the book about, as a whole?2.tWhat is being said in detail, and how?3.tIs the book true, in whole or part?4.tWhat of it?How ask these four questions is explained in detail, in the remaining part of the book.Analytical reading has three stages. The first one is mainly concerned with classifying the book, and understanding its aim and structure. To do this, the authors suggest four rules.1.tYou must know what kind of book you are reading, and you should know as early in the process as possible, preferably before you begin to read.2.tState the unity of the whole book in a single sentence, or at most a few sentences (a short paragraph).3.tSet forth the major parts of the book, and show how these are organised into a whole, by being ordered to one another and to the unity of the whole.4.tFind out what the author’s problems were.The first rule classifies (“pigeonholes”) the book, by affixing it to a category, genre, etc.: the second is used to create a précis: the third expands the précis into an outline, thus revealing the underlying structure (“X-Raying” the book, as the authors name it) and the fourth defines the purpose of the book. The author presumably wrote it for a reason: he had some questions at the beginning, which he has presumably tried to answer through the book. The reader has to find out what these questions are.If the first stage of analytical reading is related to the what, the second is related to the how; how has the author attempted to solve the problem with which he started out. For this stage also, Adler and Van Doren proposes four rules.1.tCome to terms with the author by interpreting his key words.2.tGrasp the author’s leading propositions by dealing with his most important sentences. 3.tKnow the author’s arguments by finding them in, or constructing them out of, sequences of sentences.4.tDetermine which of his problems the author has solved, and which he has not: and as to the latter, decide which the author knew he had failed to solve.The argument here that any author, putting forth an argument, will use certain key words and terms (for example “natural selection” and “evolution” by Darwin in The Origin of Species). It is the reader’s duty to come to terms with the author, so that he does not misinterpret the author’s intentions by misreading the terms. Then on, it is an exercise in logic by understanding the propositions and arguments. This is not as difficult as it looks: in fact, we do it all the time, even though the exact logical terms may be unfamiliar to us. A proposition is nothing but the meaning contained within a declarative sentence: and arguments what the author uses to prove the truth of the proposition.The fourth step is a little more difficult for the lay reader, and it will only come through practice. One needs to find out which of the problems presented the author had been able to solve: and if he had been unable to solve some, whether he knew he had failed or not. At this point of time, it is not important whether the reader agrees with the author. That comes later. Here, we are talking about the author’s own internal logic, and how far he has been able to present his arguments consistently in light of it, and how far he has been in successfully concluding his arguments.In the third stage of analytical reading, the reader, for the first time, starts to apply his critical senses and begins to agree or disagree with the author. Here according to the authors of the current book, the reader has to follow certain etiquette, captured in the following three rules:1.tDo not begin criticism until one has completed the outline (first stage) and interpretation (second stage). Then one can agree, disagree or suspend judgement.2.tDo not disagree disputatiously or contentiously. Or in plain words, unless one can present factual evidence acceptable at least to oneself, disagreement with an author based on emotional prejudice should be avoided (easier said than done!).3.tDemonstrate that one knows the difference between knowledge and mere personal opinion by presenting good reasons for any critical judgement one makes.The authors also provide special criteria for criticism: (1) show where the author is uninformed, (2) show where he is misinformed, (3) show where his illogical and (4) show where his analysis is incomplete.Syntopic ReadingThis is the fourth (and most advanced) level of reading, according to Adler and Van Doren – though I’d perhaps disagree. Here, the reader is engaged in researching books about one basic idea. For example, if you want to read up on, say evolution, you must first understand what the significant books are on the subject: then you must proceed to read them, and summarise the arguments, both pro and con, preferably remaining objective throughout. Phew! Not a very easy task.Don’t worry, the authors give step-by-step instructions for this level also. First, create a bibliography of the subject and inspect all of the books to ascertain which are the relevant ones: then, do the following:1.tDo inspectional reading of the selected book to choose the passages which are most relevant to the subject at hand;2.tEstablish a neutral terminology which is applicable to all the authors, so that all of them can be brought to the same terms;3.tEstablish a set of neutral propositions, by framing a set of questions which all the authors can be seen as answering;4.tRange the answers on both sides of the issue. The issue may not always explicitly exist, and may have to be constructed by interpretation of the authors’ views (for example, in the case of evolutionary theory, “Intelligent Design” is a form of creationism even though the trappings of evolutionary theory are used);5.tAnalyse the discussion by ordering the issues to throw maximum light on the subject.The authors stress the need for dialectical objectivity throughout; that is, the reader is only expected to arrange and present the arguments so as to present an ordered discussion without taking sides. So the aim of syntopical reading is to “clear away the deadwood and prepare the way for an original thinker to make a breakthrough”.***Whoever has read through this review so far would be asking (him/her)self: “But that’s applicable to expository books, where the main aim is the dissemination of information? What about fiction? What about poetry? What about drama?” Well, the authors extend their methodology to all kinds of books, but according to me, it falls flat. All said and done, the methodology works only for expository works. And that is its main problem.This book is not about literary theory or criticism: nor is it about literature appreciation. It is a self-help book on the lines of those on time management, attending interviews, etc. It outlines a methodology, the diligent following of which will guarantee results, according to its authors. It well may, for the major part of the book devoted to analytical reading gave me some insights on how to tackle books on difficult subjects like philosophy and political theory (the two stars are for that). But the book is extremely boring, and the authors’ insistence on applying their favourite methodology to all sorts of books was stretching things a bit (moreover, it takes all the fun out of reading!). And syntopic reading may make sense to an undergraduate preparing a dissertation, but is of little use to anybody else.If anyone wants to read this book, I would recommend an inspectional reading concentrating mainly on the methodology of analytical reading only. The other parts are not worth the time spent on it.I purchased a copy, but the book seems to be available free on the net (no idea about copyright issues!), so go ahead and try it if you want. Statutory warning: boredom ahead.
Do You like book How To Read A Book: The Classic Guide To Intelligent Reading (1972)?
It’s such a dinosaur. Cranky, snooty, stuffy, pedantic, often condescending. It’s a manual. For intelligent reading. Very textbook-y, very fundamental. Very practical. Like some invisible ruler cracked against my keyboard-clobbering knuckles, like a pesky voice in your head.It’s like having tea with your cane-thumping retiree-professor of a great-grandfather. Him demanding why you aren’t wearing hose, and will you please stand up straight? You bide your time, you promised you’d keep him company. And then, hours later, you realize you’re growing fond of the old coot, you can’t help but enjoy the starchiness. And there are rewards, there are gems your heart could ping with, the occasional moments of, egad, tenderness. Just imagine Gramps lecturing you on all the misreading you’ve committed, giving you precise directions on how to analyze a given book’s title, teaching you how to skim the right way. And then him suddenly going quiet, when you’ve mustered the courage to ask about fiction—him quiet and then, and then: “We do not know, we cannot be sure, that the real world is good. But the world of a great story is somehow good. We want to live there as often and as long as we can.” And you both reach for your cups of tea.
—Sasha Martinez
كتاب ذو مادة علمية ممتازة لكن مع الاسف ترجمته غير جيدةالكتاب يتناول كل شئ عن القراءة فيناقش مستويات القراءة وهي مستويات متراكمة وليست منفصلة وهي القراءة الابتدائية ثم التفحصية ثم التحليلية ثم القراءات المتازمنة التعددية حول موضوع واحدوكل مستوى له عدة خطوات لتحقيقه واوضح الفرق بين العلم والفلسفة والكتب النظرية والتطبيقية وكيف يمكن قراءة التاريخ والسير الذاتية والرياضيات والعلوم والفلسفة وكيفية الحكم على الكتب بشكل موضوعيفي النهاية الكتاب يعلمك كيف تقرأ كتابا وتستفيد منه الى اقصى حد كتاب ممتع ومفيد ويستحق القراءة ولولا الترجمة لقيمته ب 5 نجوم
—نرمين الشامى
this is a later addition: in answer to the title question 'how to...' I must offer my considered reply, that might be buried, might be forgotten, might be so obvious no one ever states it. how? with joy, with pleasure, with desire, in whatever language, in translations, in genres, in history. to add to this, in personal claim: from a comfortable, shaded, breezy lanai of the condo facing the beach, listening to the surf, the wild chickens, the laughter of children in the pool...first review: i read a lot of books. many are not the sort many people read, but nonetheless i believe i read in a widely- if not 'well'- read way. this is of its time 1940, updated 1972. so the five rating is perhaps deceptive. i do not always agree with some of the suggestions, the judgements, even the final implied value of 'how to read'- where this is 'what to read'. i believe it is more important that you read, than what you read. i would not presume to tell readers it is best to read 'above their heads', that reading should be done well, even done at all, but this book works with such assertions given to those of us who, well, like to read, value reading, are open to anything that helps this project... the five stars is sincere, on the other, as so many intro philosophy texts i have read, in that it encourages me to read on, read more, read other books. by way of describing this book, as it suggests, it is useful to simply refer to the organized and complete contents pages: part one: dimensions of reading. 1) activity and art of reading 2) levels of reading 3) elementary reading 4) inspectional reading 5) how to be a demanding reader. part two: third level, analytic reading 6) pigeonholing a book 7) x-raying a book 8) coming to terms with an author 9) determining author's message 10) criticizing a book fairly 11) agreeing or disagreeing with an author 12) aids to reading.part three: approaches to different kinds of reading 13) how to read practical books 14) imaginative literature 15) suggestions for stories, plays, poems 16) history 17) science and math 18) philosophy 19) social science.part four: ultimate goals of reading 20) syntopical reading 21) reading and growth of your mind.for me, i recognize that as the levels progress they blend together and no longer follow each other, that i have part one primarily as unconscious, usually very good, skills. it is good to have them enumerated, examined, so that i might learn consciously. of part two, this is clearest that reading is an active, serious, pragmatic operation, and is familiar awareness, here unstated that it is fruitful to 'stretch your mind'. by part three, it is by order assumed we the readers should learn first the skills of reading nonfiction, that only then can we approach fiction. i have only just read this work, here i am trying to set it in my mind. it is a friendly, helpful, book that offers the reader an awareness if not simply practical advice on how to read. this practical advice is not ignored, but will show up later...i must admit then i am an inconsistent, perhaps mistaken reader. i do not x-ray books, or read blurbs, commentaries, introductions, i hate coming across readers' notations, underlining, highlighting... so never do this myself, i often have the habit of reading nonfiction such as philosophy as if fiction, i do not like to know too much of the author, i often ignore even pointed declarations of commentators and simply go with what is written, i enjoy poetical tendencies in non-poetic work, such as jargon in nonfiction... on the other: yes i often ''syntopically' read many works by the same author, yes i often think too much power is granted to the writer in fiction and we readers should take it back, yes i read several authors on the same arts, read multiple works by this or that philosopher (henri bergson, husserl, heidegger, sartre, merleau-ponty, ) or writer (ross macdonald, robbe-grillet, saramago), i read only ever for fun- but my idea of 'fun' is four hundred pages on 'how to read'...this is not the first book i have read on this subject, simply one of the best to start, then you can go on to, say: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1..., or:https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5..., or: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... or: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... or: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8... or you can go afield: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... or more technically: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...i enjoyed all of these books, though they are more on poetics, more 'this is what you are reading'...
—the gift
