Most readers don't want to spend most of their time reading verbose works by single author, when a greater variety of more relevant and thoughtfully concise works are available from a much larger pool of thinkers. Prior to the Internet they had much less choice: books were just the way educated people learned and taught. (And many people still believe that reading and writing books is the sine quo non of being educated, just as many Europeans in 1500 still lauded the superiority of scribal methods and scholastic thought).
related posts
61 sats \ 3 replies \ @cryotosensei 26 Jan
But I think there’s something to be said about immersing yourself in the words of an author for an extended period of time, especially when it’s someone you relate to
reply
51 sats \ 2 replies \ @erict875 OP 26 Jan
Yes, my understanding is that this doesn't mean there's no value in reading the heavy stuff, but I think Szabo is just reminding us of the opportunity costs of doing so.
Not everyone needs to read Mises' Human Action, instead, they can get a more than OK understanding of Austrian economics just by subscribing to mises.org...
Same applies to the bible, if you read and internalise the Ten Commandments.
reply
1000 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 26 Jan
This is good fodder for discussion. @elvismercury expressed almost the exact opposite opinion a few days ago about Human Action. I can't find the post right now.
reply
1684 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury 26 Jan
The devil is in the details: you can read mises.org and get a sketch of Austrian econ, but in most cases you'll just be regurgitating other people's conclusions -- it will be a surface-level understanding, no better than any other surface-level understanding of anything.
Which is fine, not everyone can possibly have a deep understanding of more than a couple of things. The annoying (and harmful) thing is when people think they understand more than they do. Empty bitcoin talking heads are no better than empty talking heads in any other place. Unfortunately bitcoiners are no better at understanding this truth than anyone else is.
Anyway, Human Action is a giant lift and rewards investment. Doesn't mean that lesser investments in other places aren't a better use of time for some people in some circumstances.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 26 Jan
His ideological comrades may have some trouble applying his theory to The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @siggy47 26 Jan
His theory may apply to much of non fiction, but none of what Szabo says is relevant to fiction, literary or otherwise. You can't create imaginary worlds in short paragraphs or bullet points.
reply
51 sats \ 3 replies \ @erict875 OP 26 Jan
Yes, indeed. This was assumed.
reply
50 sats \ 2 replies \ @siggy47 26 Jan
By the way, great find! Thanks for posting. It's always good to read Szabo. I have never read this before.
reply
51 sats \ 1 reply \ @erict875 OP 26 Jan
I wish he would publish more. I read this one a long time ago, and it made me feel less guilty for not always finishing books. Now, with most books, I read the intro, and a few other selected chapters. 😎
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 26 Jan
I can't relate. I have always seen reading as a fun activity. I often am sorry when a book ends. I'm also a boomer, so that probably has something to do with it. I had less sources of information growing up.
reply