Having seen a video elsewhere that proposed using essay writing a for a similar purpose, to help you understand what you have just read, I was a bit overwhelmed - ok, reluctant - to do this in the reading I do for pleasure. However, this sounds much more manageable: something I am realistically likely to do after reading an interesting non fiction, as opposed to feeling guilty for not bothering to write an essay for fun.
That's great--I'm glad this feels more manageable. I'm a pro-essay person generally, but not everything needs that level of attention (and not everyone--anyone?--wants that level of effort all the time)
@@WritingwithAndrew I think you’re right about not everything needing the detailed attention of an essay. I’ve written a few précis since seeing this video and it was actually good fun and an interesting way to think about how I just spent my time reading. I’m sure something will reveal itself as ‘essay worthy’ in due time. Thanks again
Getting the big picture of what the text is about is all well and good...until the Professor wants you to understand point by point how the writer of the text reached his conclusion. Then one finds oneself in the weeds trying to understand the development of the writers argument. For example when Professor Pearson asked us to learn the logical argument of a chapter in The Republic. I found myself slogging through the literary equivalent of a mud pit. Struggling and struggling and not making any progress...just stuck in the damn mud no matter how many times I read it! What is your response to my difficulties?
I'd reaffirm the value of context: stepping back to see how the text is put together and what it's trying to accomplish really helps. I think many readers get stuck on one part and then just stop, but it can be helpful to keep reading, figure out what the writer is trying to say and then go back to fill in the confusing details once you have a better understanding of what the text as a whole is trying to do. (For a long time, for example, I ignored section headings when I read larger texts, but, when they're there, they show you how the writer has structured the text--and that can help you to make sense of it more efficiently than just reading it word by word.) Also, it's a thing that comes with practice--and the rhetorical précis is a tool for knowing where to start
Hey my friend, How are you doing? I have a question. I'm a Brazilian teacher and I would like to know How do you call in English a poem's voice? Poetic speaker, lyrical persona or is there other options?
I think "speaker" is the most common way to refer to whoever is the voice of the poem. I've heard others, like persona, but rarely. Mas, agora, como se chama em português?
I am not sure how but a crossover between yourself and Dr. Sledge from Esoterica, possibly for a Halloween episode, would be great! I noticed the titles of the books Kabu is set upon. Just a thought, thank you for soing what you di!
to the writing advice, I'd say 95%+ of the books I've ever read should have been a leaflet.. the writing of books seems purely a form of social posturing.. 😡!!
Depends on the types of books that you read. Most math books I've read are pretty well justified in their lengths for example. For books on ideas, the idea usually takes less time than the justification - so if you're just there for the Cliff's Notes, I don't know why you're reading the book to begin with. All that being said, you do have a point, there are a lot of books that could have been an article without loosing anything important.
I seem to have been doing this all my life without knowing there was a formal name for it. But having worked in the deep end of various technology settling tanks (where the heavy chunks fall out of suspension first and collect on the bottom in an abominably aromatic but satisfyingly squishy sludge), my Four Questions tend towards cynicism: Who is this jackwagon and what are they after? How are they peddling this BS? What do they want from me? Cash? Obedience? Status? Who does this tosspot hold in contempt and is their contempt obvious or is it veiled in LinkedIn rah-rah-you're-all-so-great insincerity? Has served me pretty well. Although I do have to tell people that I'm retired and not just unemployed.
The real answer is to just read enough that you no longer have serious difficulty interpreting a sentence. The rest of what you’re saying is essentially the Feynman technique, where you try to condense the meaning of the text and gain a new appreciation of it as a result.
Interesting connection--the Feynman technique seems more generalized where the rhetorical précis is more finely attuned to a specific text's rhetorical context. Imagine what would be possible if someone applied them both together...!
