non-linear reading experiment: day 1

I've started reading Bacevich's "The Limits of Power" using a non-linear reading method prescribed online. The link to a PDF outlining the reading process is in my previous post.

Today I started the preliminary, "discovery" stage of reading. According to the guide, you ought to read through the book three times, with a different focus each time.

The first of these stages is the "discovery" stage. In this stage, the main focus is to gain an overall grasp of the author's key ideas, points, methodology, and context. In order to do this, I got a stop-watch, a highlighter, and a note-pad and pen.

1. First I took a look at the cover illustration and the "tagline" underneath the title. I noticed the publishing project of which this book is a contribution. I looked at the back, and noted who gave praise for the book. Often it was an author of another famous book, or someone famous and part of a large institutions. Observing all these details helps to put the book into a frame of context, giving me an idea of who the audience is, what the general concepts may be, and what type of people the author and publishers chose to endorse as "experts" on the topic.



2. Second, I flipped through the flaps. The book's flaps give an abstract about the author, and a synopsis about the book. What I look for is where the author is coming from, from an intellectual and professional perspective. I start to identify key words and phrases which aren't commonplace or every-day things, and may give clues to key concepts the author discusses inside the book.



3. Next, I note the book's copyright date for context. I look through the table of contents, and begin highlighting any key phrases or titles of chapters which sound like something the author is using to organize a thought or argument. After this is the index: any entries which have a substantial amount of references, I'll highlight. Because they're mentioned more times than other things in the book, they're important things to note and keep in mind.



4. I do the same, going through the sources, to see any works that are commonly referenced.



5. The dedication page and acknowledgements give a glimpse of who the author is, and where his motivation/passion comes from.



6. Next, I start going through the book, almost glancing, and not reading in detail. I look for repeated phrases, titles, and concepts. Any time the author mentions something like, "this lesson teaches us..." or "that ideology led Mr. so-and-so to..." I highlight the part that says "this lesson" or "that ideology". The point is, anything I highlight is a key to a point the author is trying to make, and a reference for me to focus upon in my second read. What lesson is he talking about? What ideology is he referring to? Words like "paradoxically" or "Conversely" are highlighted, because it's clear that the author is drawing a line and comparing two things. What are those two things? I write down main repeated phrases and words. In this case, it was words like, "preemptive war", "freedom, abundance, and dependence", "ideology of national security". When I read more thoroughly the second time, I'll see these highlighted phrases and seek to see what, exactly, the author is trying to say with them.



7. Afterwards, I type up the phrases. The first read through is done.

I set a goal to read the whole book in 6 hours. By the professor's metric, the first read should then take about 35-40 minutes. I took 69 minutes, a little over an hour. I will definitely get better and faster at this--this was the first time I ever attempted to do it, and I eventually got into a faster groove as time went on and I honed my practice.

Results:

• I noticed the author's methodical introduction of an idea/argument , and subsequent support and conclusion. I did not quite discover how he transitions from one major argument into another.



• I highlighted the start of each argument, the starting sentence of each supporting idea, and the concluding statement or paragraph.



• I have a good feeling for what the author is trying to say. There is a framework of ideas I'm excited to read through and identify.

This was fun, and I could probably have a conversation about the whole book, even based off this preliminary, short read.

I have 5 more hours to read. I estimate I'll take 3.5 to 4 hours on the actual reading, then 1 to 1.5 hours typing up notes and formulating critique and counter-argument.

This was fun!