Re:Skim reading is the new normal. The effect on society is ...
by nine_k on Sunday August 26, 2018 @05:39AM
(#17845106)
Reiterating and showing from different angles and in various contexts = good.
Not getting to the point, or giving relevant context and precursor ideas, while dwelling on unrelated subjects = fluff.
I like my non-fiction the way I like science articles: starting with a summary, and diving into all necessary details later.
Re:Skim reading is the new normal. The effect on society is ...
by readcarefully on Sunday August 26, 2018 @11:00AM
(#17846197)
Technical writing must be this way.
However using poetic language in writing that's trying to communicate scientific understanding to everyone, I find, is useful and appropriate. Look at Carl Sagan's popular writings, or some of Asimov's more science related works for good examples.
You only really grasp a point when you hear it many times, and see it applied (or even better apply it yourself).
There is this online service selling summarised versions of popular books. I’ve read many of those summaries, and undoubtedly the key points are all contained in there. But: you read it, and then you forget.
The complete book takes time to lay out the key points and arguments, puts them in context, explains various aspects, gives many examples, challenges you to apply them, and, yes, repeats them. And that’s what you need to actually take them on board. It’s a whole web of beliefs.
As an extreme example: you could give the basic definitions and axioms of, say, group theory on one page, and say “the rest follows”. No fluff. But somebody that’s only read that page has no idea about group theory. For that you need the book, with fluff.