Reading selectively or whole in a book?

[blazeofglory]

I sometimes wonder whether we must break with the traditional way of reading from start to finish when it comes to reading a novel or a book of non fiction. I have read the Brothers Karamazov lately and thought about having a second look at it thinking that Dostoevsky is really philosophically appealing, and a second reading will be deeper and I may arrive at or come to know the truth pronounced in Dostoevsky's book. Then when I read it for a second time I left out some of the chapters and that has really been a thrilling experience. The same happened when I took Russell's history of philosophy, a colossal book that would take too many strenuous hours me. I have read a few pages with a desire to read the entire book thinking that if I do not do so some of the really philosophically important parts go passed over. But after flipping thru a few pages the exercise became mind-numbing or lackluster. Some of the things particularly some of the narratives he had given exhaustively about Hellenic philosophers became incomprehensible to me and in fact I put down the book for a few days though I had a passion at the outset. Then a few days after I switched to a different method of reading. I skipped many parts. For Example when I was reading his accounts of Orphic or Pythagoras or Heraclius I kind of read just a few passages, not the entire essay on him. This gave me a really exhilarating experience. Now I am into Tolstoy's War and Peace and I do not think I will go through all and I will choose some of the things that will become palatable to me and of course such readings will really educate and entertain me at the same time.
I want to share the view and expect what the rest have to say on this topic

[LitNetIsGreat]

Why not? Whatever works for you. It really depends upon what you are tackling I think. In non-fiction in particular it often makes very little sense to read in a completely linear fashion. Often points in the introductions or conclusions carry more weight to whatever the argument may be. In non-fiction it is often a very good idea to get an overview of what is happening, a few general ideas before going deeper - use the book however you want to especially if you are getting more out of it that way.

With fiction I personally approach things differently. I always read in a linear manner and partial reads don't ever work for me. However, on a second reading I often go back and read sections for study or at random for pleasure in a variety of ways – partial reads are really useful for me on second+ reads. I wouldn't be against reading a book for the first time in a non-linear manner, Wilde often started at the back and worked around the text, but for me a first read 99% of the time is done in the traditional manner of page one to the end. :)

[L.M. The Third]

^:iagree: Sometimes though, I tend to read through a book so that I can say I've read the whole thing, and if it's not really pertinent or engaging that might be a disadvantage and I might do better to skim it. On the other hand, selective reading is not a habit I generally admire, as it can show a lack of mental discipline, imo.

[mal4mac]

Russell's "History" is a pot-boiler cobbled together from superficial material hurriedly put together for an adult education class. Russell did this so he could eat - silly boy had given away all his money... Tolstoy's War & Peace is, according to most polls of serious critics, the greatest novel in history. The former deserves to be skipped (completely :-)), the latter deserves to read in full - although highlighting certain passages for repeated re-reading is sure a reasonable thing to do ...

[blazeofglory]

I very much agree with you; of course there can be no comparison. I have not read Tolstoy's war and peace. I have made several attempts to complete this book I discontinued after flipping through a few pages. But I did not find it cumbersome despite the fact some parts are hard to keep track of. There are too many characters in the novel and sequencing one series of events with another and frequent switching to different circumstances. Yet what I really find absorbing in Tolstoy which I cannot find even in Dostoevsky is he can wonderfully get at the bottom of the thing he writes about. When it comes to style he is a matchless read. I always was fascinated by his books and stories. I have read his other novels, short stories even plays, essays, but I never dared reading war and peace; this was of course owing to the bulkiness of the book; the seriousness of it.
I was wrong to say that we can skim Tolstoy. Of course in Russell there are too many unnecessary accounts despite the fact that he was a good writer and very mindful of what he wrote. There is nothing as redundant part. Everything is impeccable. No writer has appealed to me more than Tolstoy. From an artistic point of view I was like Ulysses of James Joyce. But my reading failed and after reading a few chapters I got lost and I found it unappealing.