Read literature with an old writing style, especially if you dislike said writing style. The more opaque and complicated, the better.
I find that I’m a very fidgety reader, unconsciously skipping words, or even whole sentences, skimming over words I don’t actually know the meaning of, and failing to connect the context of words that I do know the meaning of with the rest of the narrative or lecture. This I do with both literature and more importantly, when reading science. I’ve decided to read At The Mountains of Madness and penalize myself for every time I lose track of the narrative, and reward myself for every time I recognize when one sentence adds or contributes to something implied by another sentence earlier on in the paragraph, and so on. Furthermore, I will do this for only literature, and not with learning new scientific concepts, or even old ones that I have already learned. The problem is with reading comprehension, not with understanding concepts, and exercising two skills at once prematurely may cause problems. I hope this will instill genuine patience, so that being careful and observant becomes a natural thing, rather than the uncomfortable thing I wrestle with.
Proust’s In Search of Lost Time, with its famously long and complicated sentences that often take four or five reads to parse, is great for this. As a bonus, it’s Great.
...and sometimes, those old books will surprise you in a good way. I’m struggling through W. Scott’s ‘Waverley’, and there’s a Lady who was in danger from a hidden Enemy. Unfortunately, even though he is known to the Good Guy, accusing him of ill intent is politically unwise, so the Good Guy conceals himself and ‘stalks’ the Lady as a peasant, … She is bewildered, but doesn’t tell anyone because they would think her given to fancy. He saves her life as a forester, and she sees divine intervention in this and prepares to enter a convent. (She is thought to lose her mind when she tells her observations.) He then reveals himself, she UPDATES her beliefs and they [probably] marry. A Bayesian happy end! How cool is that?
Read literature with an old writing style, especially if you dislike said writing style. The more opaque and complicated, the better.
I find that I’m a very fidgety reader, unconsciously skipping words, or even whole sentences, skimming over words I don’t actually know the meaning of, and failing to connect the context of words that I do know the meaning of with the rest of the narrative or lecture. This I do with both literature and more importantly, when reading science. I’ve decided to read At The Mountains of Madness and penalize myself for every time I lose track of the narrative, and reward myself for every time I recognize when one sentence adds or contributes to something implied by another sentence earlier on in the paragraph, and so on. Furthermore, I will do this for only literature, and not with learning new scientific concepts, or even old ones that I have already learned. The problem is with reading comprehension, not with understanding concepts, and exercising two skills at once prematurely may cause problems. I hope this will instill genuine patience, so that being careful and observant becomes a natural thing, rather than the uncomfortable thing I wrestle with.
Proust’s In Search of Lost Time, with its famously long and complicated sentences that often take four or five reads to parse, is great for this. As a bonus, it’s Great.
...and sometimes, those old books will surprise you in a good way. I’m struggling through W. Scott’s ‘Waverley’, and there’s a Lady who was in danger from a hidden Enemy. Unfortunately, even though he is known to the Good Guy, accusing him of ill intent is politically unwise, so the Good Guy conceals himself and ‘stalks’ the Lady as a peasant, … She is bewildered, but doesn’t tell anyone because they would think her given to fancy. He saves her life as a forester, and she sees divine intervention in this and prepares to enter a convent. (She is thought to lose her mind when she tells her observations.) He then reveals himself, she UPDATES her beliefs and they [probably] marry. A Bayesian happy end! How cool is that?