Talk:How to Read a Book

Major Revision/Repairs Needed
This article seems to be subject to a lot of vandalism and no one seems to be maintaining it, can it be semi-protected or asigned to some kind of watch list?

The text for "Part I" seems to have been missing for a LONG time due to vandalism and perhaps edit failures, so I am reinstating the section text from 7 July 2009. This is somewhat arbitrary as I have not searched through the *entire* history to see if there are better versions... if someone has a tool to make that easier, a more thorough review might be worthwhile.

... On further examination (i.e. snippets of the book online) ... there appear to be different versions of the book with different section titles. The content of the WP article here seems to be an inconsistent mix of editions. This article needs major revision (or repair from vandalism or whatever messed it up so bad). DKEdwards (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Older comments
Actually, Adler wrote three books all called "How to read a book", darn him! --Uncle Ed 19:48 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

Ed, with all due respect could we link a review that is not from an explicitly Christian point of view? Slrubenstein


 * One trained and equipped to be a life-long learner (an active reader) and whose source of knowledge is of the one and only triune God will be one equipped to take “every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” even as Paul stood upon Mars Hill and took captive the thoughts of the Stoic philosophers, and later, the educated King Agrippa, as well as the common Jew and Gentile.'


 * Yeah. Right Ed. Great review. Real balance. Tannin 23:54 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

Table of Contents
I've removed the Table of Contents. It didn't seem enyclopedic material and may (thought probably not) be a copyvio. Superm401 - Talk 16:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Book overview
I've added an in-depth summary and overview of the 1940 edition. Any typo/grammar fixes would be appreciated (I'm sure I missed something) as would help with finding and adding relevant links to other articles. Also, I'm sure that the formatting could be improved; this is my first edit outside of some minor anonymous typo/word usage fixes. If anyone's read the newer edition and would like to add more about that, I'd recommend making a new L2 section titled "changes and additions in the 1972 edition" or something to that effect, assuming it makes sense to do so. I've not read the later edition. Fallingcow 17:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

1972 revision
I've read the "overview of the first edition"(as of Jan19th 2008). I am unable to comment on it's accuracy, as I only have access to the 1972 edition. However, I will say that the overview presented here differs significantly from my understanding of the author's message-at least in the later edition. Of most significance, Syntopical reading is mentioned but never explained. Of lesser significance, phrases like "the first reading", "the second reading" are needlessly indirect. They should be replaced with the specific stage of reading being discussed.

My understanding of Adler's "Stages of Reading":

I believe these stages to be core to the author's message, with all other points serving only to support this central proposition. As such, I'd like to see the wikipedia summary place more emphasis on the stages so that they are communicated clearly and concisely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubin427 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Dw5 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As someone familiar only with the 1940 edition, I'd like to address your concerns. Your table of Adler's "Stages of Reading" and the terms you use in it are unfamiliar to me, though a clear evolution of thoughts in the 1940 edition. The three items listed under "Analytical Reading", in particular, correspond fairly well to the "three readings" prescribed in the 1940 edition, though the third reading is for the reader to decide if ey agree or disagree, rather than to decide what the book means to them. (The phrases "first reading" etc. are the ones Adler uses throughout the 1940 edition, using the names "structural", "interpretive", and "critical" (mistakenly listed as "syntopical" in a previous version of the article) only in defining the purposes of the three readings.)


 * "Syntopical Reading" is not a phrase I recall encountering at all. The majority of the book deals only with "intrinsic reading", which he defines as "reading a book in itself, quite apart from all other books." The forerunner of "Syntopical reading", "Extrinsic reading" (defined as "reading a book in the light of other books"), is dealt with very little and mostly at the very end of Part II where Adler recommends reading the Great Books in either chronological (or reverse chronological) order to better understand the "conversation" between them.


 * A few sections up the page, Fallingcow recommends an article section along the lines of "Changes in the 1972 Edition", and I second this, though I cannot write it, not having that edition. -Ornithopter (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No boks from outside the Western tradition
The book may be ethnocentric. It is from the 1940s and written by a classically educated white American intellectual. But is this such a defining and significant characteristic that it needs to be highlighted in the first few sentences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.70.252 (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

what's the reading list for?
where the reading list come from, can anyone explain it more? what's the source of the reading list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Mok (talk • contribs) 09:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The reading list is provided in an Appendix of (at least) the 1972 edition as Adler's recommended reading list. 66.234.38.103 (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)