Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren^*

Finished 2020-05-27.

My own synopsis.

This book describes an idealized and aspirational process for reading any sort of document, although they focus on books since, they say, if you can read a book well you can read anything else well. They emphasize the idea of reading as a way to engage in a conversation with the author, as a way to challenge yourself to understand new ideas (as opposed to simply becoming aware of new facts), and that there is a spectrum of bad to good books and bad to good ways to read a book. The method they present here is something that few people will ever execute perfectly for any book, but nonetheless this is the model that we should strive towards. And, we should recognize that not all books are worth the striving — learning to identify these books quickly and give them no more than their due is also an important part of reading well, since we will not profit much by giving an excellent read to a mediocre work.

They divide “reading” up into four levels, and devote the greatest part of the book to analytical reading. Following that, they provide specific advice for reading specific types of works, and they conclude the book with a (short) discussion of syntopical reading, which I think is basically “doing research.”

Opening matter

• Reading is a skilled activity, and highly skilled reading is the practice of independent thinking
• Reading is active on both sides — like catching a baseball
• Students first learn with the aid of a teacher, but for most of our lives we don’t enjoy that aid — this book is about how to become a highly skilled unaided discoverer by engaging with books

You own the book — scribble in it!

• (Structural notes) Even during inspectional reading (what kind of book, what is it about, how does the author develop the argument, the outline), it can be useful to briefly note your answers, in the endpapers or title page maybe.
• (Conceptual notes) During an analytical reading, notes as you comprehend and evaluate the author’s points.
• (Dialectical notes) Concerning how this book relates to other books.

Four basic questions

There are four basic questions a demanding reader asks of a book, and the recommendations for reading a book at different levels work in tandem with these questions:

BQ1

What is the book about? (Categorizing the book, and summarizing the main topic and main point.)

BQ2

What does the author say in detail, and how? (Outlining the book, coming to terms with the author, comprehending the argument.)

BQ3

Is the book true, in whole or in part? (What is your judgment of the author’s arguments? What about the smaller parts? What about how they all fit together?)

BQ4

So what? (Why does the author think it’s important? Why do I think it’s important? What follows from this?)

Levels of reading

There are four levels of reading: elementary, inspectional, analytical, and syntopical.

Elementary reading — the basic mechanics of recognizing and understanding words, sentences, and so on — elementary school reading. The authors have a whole chapter of comments about this topic, which to me doesn’t seem particularly related to the rest of the book and probably reflects some chip on their shoulders. Basically, we can see that American schools very often do not get people up to speed on even this level of reading, but we’re not really sure why. Nonetheless, we all agree this is a very important problem that we should try to fix, and that universal literacy is a cornerstone of a healthy democratic society.

Inspectional reading — the goal is to spend as little time as possible figuring out what kind of book it is, the general structure, and the main points. Fast, fast, fast! During inspectional reading you are trying to:

• Categorize the book — what kind of book is it, who is the audience, what topics does it cover, what is the style?
• Prioritize the book — is it worth spending more time on this one? How much more time?
• Comprehend the book — in the general sense of being able to put this book, and possibly its outline, into your mental catalog

Some strategies for accomplishing this:

• Read the title page, table of contents, preface, publisher’s blurb, index
• From that, try and figure out which chapters or parts are most important; take a look at those (chapter summaries, or the first and last pages)
• Skim through it — flip through the book, dipping in here and there for a paragraph or page that seems especially relevant

Superficial reading is also an important part of inspectional reading — don’t try to understand everything in a difficult book on the first go-round. Don’t be afraid to speed through a book the first time around — you’ll have it even better the second time.

Reading the great books — How To Read … and the books themselves are more opportunities to practice, or enjoy; one shouldn’t use these as an excuse to

The point is that one should have somewhat clear goals for their own interests and life. The Great Books may have something to say, but one should focus also, probably more, on relevant books. There’s greatness everywhere.

Analytical reading

The main topic of this book. The recommendations for carefully, thoughtfully, actively reading a worthwhile book.

Recurring themes: learn to identify the books that do not need a great deal of time and care, do not spend your time on undeserving books; these rules are an ideal to aspire to, even though you may never execute a “perfect reading.”

Stage one: Finding out what a book is about — Answering BQ1

1. Classify the book according to kind and subject matter. You must know what kind of book you’re reading, as early as possible, ideally before you actually start reading. It may be helpful to consider the distinction between practical (“know how;” a call to action; normative or moral ethics; how you should behave) and theoretical books (descriptions of the world, “know that”); practical books typically contain some element of oratory (or hortatory), so judging whether you agree with their argument is particularly important. “Agreeing” with a practical book necessarily implies some change on your part. It may be helpful to consider the distinction between history (essentially narration of what has happened), science (inherently appeals to specialized experience, the experiences and evidence from specific experiments or observations), and philosophy (appeals essentially to everyday experience, and careful thought).
2. State what the whole book is about with the utmost brevity. (Grasp the unity of the book.) Do not hesitate to use all the affordances the author gives you: titles, chapter summaries, and so on.
3. Enumerate its major parts in their order and relation, and outline these parts as you have outlined the whole. (Grasp the complexity of the book.) Again, rely on whatever the author can give you. Outlines are fractal. Always, always make your own outline; don’t crib someone else’s (except the author’s) — the entire point is the exercise.
4. Define the problem or problems the author is trying to solve. (Even though the author may not them clear.) Answering 2, 3, and 4 almost has to happen in parallel, and question 4 is mainly a useful guidepost for getting at good answers to 2 and 3.

Stage two: Finding out what a book says (interpreting its contents) — Answering BQ2 — Stage One was about the top-down approach, getting the general idea and outline and breaking it down into smaller parts. Stage two is the bottom-up approach: identifying the logical building blocks an author uses (terms, propositions, and arguments). Stage one and two should meet in the middle.

5. Come to terms with the author by interpreting his key words. A “term” is a word in context; the author’s skilled use of language to convey a specific idea that’s not a dictionary definition. A term is closer to a key idea: one term may be expressed with many words, or a variety of related phrases, etc. Coming to terms may not be hard. Look for words that give you trouble. Some fields (Adam Smith, Darwin) have specialized technical vocabularies, often related to the author’s terms; alas not so in philosophy. Look for when the author quarrels with others over the meaning of a word. Vocabulary versus terminology. The author will teach you the meaning of their terms. (Adler and van Doren imply a hierarchy of meanings; understanding terms is a matter of getting to ground in the hierarchy. I think it’s more like Stuart Kauffman’s view of a self-reinforcing web of related “meanings” that can never be independently grounded.)

6. Grasp the author’s leading propositions by dealing with his most important sentences. Propositions (like axioms) are statements of fact or declarations of opinion, from which arguments are built. Finding key sentences: pay attention to when you are puzzled or have to pay special attention to follow the author; pay attention to the author’s own effort to call out their main points. You understand the propositions in the key sentences if you can restate and explain them in your own words. > A prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and from their women.

   Contains at least two propositions: it is easier to endure fear than hatred; avoiding hatred is matter of not abusing the property rights or women of subjects.

7. Know the author’s arguments, by finding them in, or constructing them out of, sequences of sentences. Arguments are the next logical unit up from propositions, and are composed of sequences of propositions. Usually arguments are in paragraphs, but sometimes they are scattered across paragraphs or pages. Good authors often summarize their arguments at some point; watch out for that, and possibly revisit the material that culminated in the summary. Look for the reasons, and the conclusion. Look for the different between inductive arguments (specifics prove a generalization; experiment) and deductive arguments (general considerations prove another general idea; reason). Pay attention to what the author says they must assume, what they say they prove through reason or evidence, and what they say is self-evident (and whether and why you agree with them).

8. Determine 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. Adler and van Doren actually have very little to say about this — essentially a recapitulation of what you already know after going through the prior three rules. This is an opportunity to connect the building blocks to the stage one approach.

Stage three: Criticizing a book as a communication of knowledge — Answering BQ3 (and BQ4) — I had few marginal comments for these two chapters; generally this seems self explanatory. In science the most critical error is allowing you to fool yourself; and so in reading thinking generally, it’s good policy to bend over backwards trying to understand a (good) book before you disagree (or agree!) with it.

A. General maxims of intellectual etiquette

9. Do not begin criticism until you have completed your outline and your interpretation of the book. (Do not say you agree, disagree, or suspend judgement, until you can say “I understand.”)
10. Do not disagree disputatiously or contentiously.
11. Demonstrate that you recognize the difference between knowledge and mere personal opinion by presenting good reasons for any critical judgement you make.

B. Special criteria for points of criticism

Recognize the role of emotion in your response; you are only a human animal — Strive to make your own assumptions explicit, and make sure your disagreement is not a disagreement about assumptions — Attempt, again, to be impartial by reading the book’s arguments sympathetically — Remember the following grounds for disagreement only actually matter if they have a bearing on the author’s conclusion

12. Show wherein the author is uninformed. Darwin didn’t know about genetics. Possibly Rosseau’s ideas about the state of nature of early humans.
13. Show wherein the author is misinformed. Often related to the first ground, but going farther. Spinoza argued democracy is a “more primitive” form of government than monarchy.
14. Show wherein the author is illogical.
15. Show wherein the author’s analysis or account is incomplete. This is when they fail to solve the problem they set out to, in some way; especially if they seem unaware of this. Or, if they fail to make full use of their material, missing some important consequences or ramifications.

Note: Of these last four, the first three are criteria for disagreement. Failing in all of these, you must agree, at least in part, although you may suspend judgement on the whole, in the list of the last point.

Aids to Reading

• “The great books are involved in a prolonged conversation.” — It can help a lot to read books in relation to one another, particularly in terms of time ordering. The Spirit of Laws -> The Social Contract -> Of Civil Government -> The United States Constitution -> The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.
• Commentaries and abstracts are often wrong or incomplete, annoy some teachers, and rob you of practice as a reader/thinker. They can be useful, but only after you’ve made your own best attempt.
• Dictionaries and encyclopedias are useful tools, used sparingly and well, to fill small and specific gaps in your knowledge.

Reading different kinds of material (Part 3)

• Practical books — come in two kinds, the how-to manuals (like this one, or cookbooks) that present rules and guidelines, and those that present the principles generating the guidelines (they use economics as an example of this, or moral philosophy) — a practical book is action-oriented: the point is to persuade you to change your behavior — judging practical books is always tied up in whether you agree with the goals of the book — persuasion is a natural and reasonable part of a practical book, although you should pay attention to the fact that you’re being persuaded and identify the techniques the author uses to do this — “agreeing” with a practical book implies some action on your part — reading a practical book involves changing our questions and rules to focus on objectives; what are the author’s objectives, how are they to be achieved, do you agree they are worthwhile?
• Imaginative literature — conveying knowledge versus conveying experience — modifying the rules — Structural: what kind is it?summarize the plot; outline the characters, characterizations, and episodes — Interpretive: “coming to terms” now with the characters and episodes; “propositions” are scenes and episodes; following the arguments is now following the plot — Critical: do you like it? And withhold judgement until you have experienced and granted the artist their world
• Stories, plays, and poems — the main thing I took away here is the recommendation to experience these as one big thing: read as fast as you can, ideally one sitting
• The five great epic poems (Iliad, Odyssey, Aeneid, Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost) are particularly challenging but pay off
• History and biography — a narrative of the past — can be a call to moral action — read to discover general trends
• Science and mathematics — as a layman, read the great works of science to understand the history of science, not the current state of knowledge — clarify you goals: you want to understand the problem, and the history of the problem, not become a subject matter expert — therefore, feel free to skip mathematics, experimental details, and so on.
• Philosophy (chapter 18) — I did not find much useful here.
• Sociology — coming to terms is particularly hard, because the terms are fuzzy — synoptical reading is particularly important, because the field is very young (comparatively) and there are probably no single great books yet

Syntopical reading

Reading two or more books on the same subject. But typically, you have to read quite widely before you can even identify the subject.

I. Surveying the field preparatory to syntopical reading

1. Create a tentative bibliography of your subject by recourse to library catalogues, advisors, and bibliographies in books.
2. Inspect all of the books on the tentative bibliography to ascertain which are germane to your subject, and also to acquire a clearer idea of the subject. Does the book say something important about your subject? You may not yet have a clear definition of your subject, and you may not yet know exactly what the book says about it; still, try to answer this question.

These two steps are more of a feedback loop. Inspectional reading often leads you to modify the bibliography. The critical rule is speed: do not proceed with analytically reading individual books, or syntopically reading several books, until the bibliography has converged.

Inspectional reading is absolutely critical. Inspect everything before analyzing anything. This is the absolute key; you’re trying to find the books that are really worth reading and have something to say about your subject, before you waste a lot of time reading them all.

Trying to do the inspectional and analytical steps concurrently is a classic error — most people tend to end up reading everything at the same rate. You should keep the steps separate (although you can return later and augment your bibliography to iterate the process).

II. Syntopical reading of the bibliography amassed in stage I

1. Inspect the books already identified as relevant to your subject in Stage I in order to find the most relevant passages. Often it would be possible to do this concurrently with the inspectional reading of the bibliography, but that’s perilous since at that point you’re still defining the subject and run the risk of missing something important in an early book. Better to treat this completely separately. You are trying to figure out whether an author has something useful to say about a subject that might be very far from their purpose in writing the book — this is fine; in syntopical reading the books are here to serve you.
2. Bring the authors to terms by constructing a neutral terminology of the subject that all, or the great majority, of the authors can be interpreted as employing, whether they actually employ the words or not. This is usually the most difficult part. Unlike analytical reading, you are calling the shots and setting the terms here — which means it’s particularly important to treat the authors neutrally and not impose your own meaning, while at the same time fairly translating a corpus of authors into a common set of terms.
3. Establish a set of neutral propositions for all of the authors by framing a set of question to which all or most of the authors can be interpreted as giving answers, whether they actually treat the questions explicitly or not. Frame a set of questions — which shed light on our subject — and which most of our authors answered, in one way or another.
4. Define the issues, both major and minor ones, by ranging the opposing answers of authors to the various questions on one side of an issue or another. You should remember that an issue does not always exist explicitly between or among authors, but that it sometimes has to be constructed by interpretation of the authors’ views on matters that may not have been their primary concern.
5. Analyze the discussion by ordering the questions and issues in such a way as to throw maximum light on the subject. More general issues should precede less general ones, and relations among issues should be clearly indicated.

The ideal is to maintain “dialectical detachment:” examine all sides, but take no sides. One way to insure this is always to accompany an interpretation of an author’s views on an issue with an actual quotation from their text.