But in order for this to be acceptable advice (IMO), it has to include the 2nd part, which is that not trying doesn't mean you abandon the pursuit of what you originally had in mind when you picked up the book, assuming you still have the same underlying goal.
Pulling this momentarily into the technical domain, there are hundreds of ways to learn about computing, and the underlying concepts that make it all work.
If one day, I decide I want to learn how operating systems work, there are a myriad of resources I can choose from.
I might choose one, and discover that something about it just doesn't help me learn the subject matter. Perhaps it's too dense, or assumes knowledge that I don't yet have, or is just not written very well.
My end goal is still to learn about operating systems. I can abandon this goal entirely (which is how one might read that original comment, and I think it's fair to ask whether it's imperative that I learn about operating systems), or I can find other resources that help me achieve the same goal, possibly through a very different learning process.
All I'm saying is: "If it's hard, why try?"
Is very different from: "If it's hard, consider looking for another starting point"
To the point that the 2nd sentence takes on an entirely different meaning and leads to a very different conclusion than the 1st.
> It is not anti-intellectual to say that one should stop reading a book they don't enjoy and don't have a good reason to get through
I agree with this statement, but this is not what the original comment stated. The original comment made no distinction about "a good reason to get through" the material.
I'd go a step further and say that if you don't have a good reason to get through the material, and you don't enjoy it, it's actively harmful to spend the time. At that point, you might as well fire up your favorite video game or Netflix series, which will at least give you some momentary enjoyment.
But even then, some uncertainty emerges when deciding which things are important to get through. It is often not easy to make that judgement without understanding the material, which you cannot do without getting through it. And so we look to others who we respect, who found profound meaning, and trust that there's something there.
I think the most important thing is forming some idea of what you hope to achieve (a new understanding of things, or some insight into a particular phenomena, or personal growth, etc), and then making decisions about which steps you take next based on whether or not you're achieving that goal.
One of those steps might be choosing to stop struggling through a particular book. Or one of those steps might be deciding the original goal isn't worth the effort. But I do think that choosing purely based on enjoyment or difficulty will lead to never growing.
Growth usually comes via the hardest stuff, and if growth is important to you, a different decision making framework is required.
> All I'm saying is: "If it's hard, why try?"
> Is very different from: "If it's hard, consider looking for another starting point"
Yes, but I never claimed the first. I said "I think it's worth reconsidering why you wish to read this book if you do not enjoy it."
My point being that the original comment sounded more like wishing to check a box of having read a classic book rather than wanting to approach the book for what was in it and growing from the experience:
> I'm generally a fairly well-read guy, so I would like to knock this classic out, but I am not sure how.
> I'd go a step further and say that if you don't have a good reason to get through the material, and you don't enjoy it, it's actively harmful to spend the time.
Yes I broadly agree with that.
> And so we look to others who we respect, who found profound meaning, and trust that there's something there.
There being something there for others does not mean that we will get the same thing out of it, or even anything at all if we're not in the right place for it. Doubly so if we did not pick the book because we wanted to get out of it what those others have said they got out of it.
> There being something there for others does not mean that we will get the same thing out of it, or even anything at all if we're not in the right place for it.
Sure, but it's reasonable to want to try, especially for a novel considered by some to be "the greatest work of literature ever written". That seems worthy of investigation at least. Giving up when things get tough is a pretty problematic approach if you want to grow. Whether my objection matters admittedly depends on whether the goal is to learn/grow, but I think there's a good case to be made that it is.
> My point being that the original comment sounded more like wishing to check a box of having read a classic book rather than wanting to approach the book for what was in it and growing from the experience
But the point of being well-read isn't just to complete a checklist. I think you are reading very deeply into something and drawing a potentially unwarranted conclusion.
Everyone I know who reads avidly, and who many would consider well-read, who are even aware of the existence of Anna Karenina read not for the sake of it, but to improve themselves, their knowledge and understanding of the world around them, etc.
I think that's where our differences in this thread are coming from. I'm assuming the whole point is the acquisition of knowledge/understanding, and you seem to be assuming a different motivation, although I'm not entirely sure what that motivation is (I don't think "checking a box just for the sake of it" is a warranted conclusion in context, and "checking a box" is just a rhetorical device to help us understand that this person has a gap in their reading that they haven't succeeded in filling yet). Perhaps they primarily value good literature, in which case having a list makes quite a lot of sense.
If someone expressed the same frustration about the Greek myths, a potentially more productive response would be to point someone to Stephen Fry's Mythos, Heroes and Troy, which he wrote exactly for the reason that this comment thread exists: some people find the original material difficult to get through, but the underlying message was important enough to re-tell.
In the case of Anna Karenina, perhaps exploring the various translations that exist and choosing one vs. the other would be the ideal next step.
> Giving up when things get tough is a pretty problematic approach if you want to grow.
I think this and the rest of our disagreements is how we view the original comment, and the kind of motivations we ascribe to the original comment.
I'm biased, perhaps unfairly, in that the people I've met who talk about books this way do so with the goal of being able to say that they've read X, that they can show themselves as the kind of person who has reads books like X.
Again perhaps unfair to the original comment given that I don't know where they're coming from.
Because we are the rest we are mostly in agreement about. I am the last person to argue that one should give up when and things get difficult.
But not all roads to the acquisition of knowledge lead to this book, or any one specific book.
Maybe it’s just good luck, but I haven’t encountered the type you describe so that just didn’t compute for me.
And I agree that not all roads lead there. My position was founded entirely on the stated desire to read this book, and the implied desire to learn from it.
Pulling this momentarily into the technical domain, there are hundreds of ways to learn about computing, and the underlying concepts that make it all work.
If one day, I decide I want to learn how operating systems work, there are a myriad of resources I can choose from.
I might choose one, and discover that something about it just doesn't help me learn the subject matter. Perhaps it's too dense, or assumes knowledge that I don't yet have, or is just not written very well.
My end goal is still to learn about operating systems. I can abandon this goal entirely (which is how one might read that original comment, and I think it's fair to ask whether it's imperative that I learn about operating systems), or I can find other resources that help me achieve the same goal, possibly through a very different learning process.
All I'm saying is: "If it's hard, why try?"
Is very different from: "If it's hard, consider looking for another starting point"
To the point that the 2nd sentence takes on an entirely different meaning and leads to a very different conclusion than the 1st.
> It is not anti-intellectual to say that one should stop reading a book they don't enjoy and don't have a good reason to get through
I agree with this statement, but this is not what the original comment stated. The original comment made no distinction about "a good reason to get through" the material.
I'd go a step further and say that if you don't have a good reason to get through the material, and you don't enjoy it, it's actively harmful to spend the time. At that point, you might as well fire up your favorite video game or Netflix series, which will at least give you some momentary enjoyment.
But even then, some uncertainty emerges when deciding which things are important to get through. It is often not easy to make that judgement without understanding the material, which you cannot do without getting through it. And so we look to others who we respect, who found profound meaning, and trust that there's something there.
I think the most important thing is forming some idea of what you hope to achieve (a new understanding of things, or some insight into a particular phenomena, or personal growth, etc), and then making decisions about which steps you take next based on whether or not you're achieving that goal.
One of those steps might be choosing to stop struggling through a particular book. Or one of those steps might be deciding the original goal isn't worth the effort. But I do think that choosing purely based on enjoyment or difficulty will lead to never growing.
Growth usually comes via the hardest stuff, and if growth is important to you, a different decision making framework is required.