When it comes from learning from reading: You don't learn from reading, you learn from rereading. This just in rereading a very simple older book on kettlebell swings I hadn't picked up in a long time (Pavel's Enter the Kettlebell...there's no need to laugh at me).
You'll never catch everything, even in a simple book or manual, the first time through. Reread it. There are details you've missed.
I think I miss kids books a little because of this. I'd read the same dinosaur book every afternoon, pouring over the illustrations and descriptions. (I honestly wish more adult books had good illustration)
This is a problem with I daresay both reading and writing today; its too long (and convoluted) to read more than once. And the more it is read, rather than hidden gems being discovered on each rereading, we instead discover the lack of polish.
Fahrenheit 451 is only 46,000 words. Thomas Payne's Common Sense is only 21.5k words.
Part of being an inviting piece of writing (fiction or non) is not
having to put up with a great deal of extranea. As Saint Exupery said, "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
I suppose this is one reason that, despite the lowering level of casual readers, there's such a high demand for knew books still...its because none of the new books are becoming classics, something to be read perennially, over and over. I can say as far as nonfiction goes (I read more new nonfiction than fiction) that I find the prose typically much more obtuse and roundabout than older, classic works...with the exception of philosophy...that stuffs been insufferable for ages (says the guy with a degree in it).
I'll keep trying to get better at it myself, because, jeepers, Celia 2 is long winded.
PS. Did you know extranea is not a word according to the dictionary? It certainly seems like it would be a useful one. Extraneous things=Extranea. Anyway, I can't claim it as my own as I'm certain I've heard it used before.
No comments:
Post a Comment