"Responsible Reading?" Topic

The preacher announced this morning that we would read a certain psalm "responsibly." This happens to him every now and then. But it got me to thinking about how one would read responsibly. In present company, I would suggest:
1. Look up unfamiliar words and terms.
2. Keep tracking the narrative against maps and OOB.
3. Check footnoting.
4. Look for an opposing point of view: if one book says General X was a genius, try to find one that points out his flaws.

Any others?

Well, if driving responsibly means being sober, I would say that one should be sober when reading…to avoid accidents.

Monitor your understanding while reading. If the content is poorly written or borderline incomprehensible, it may not deserve to be read.

Expanding on #3: When possible, use/check against original sources.

Reading a book is a big investment of time, you can only read so many. So I do try to look at some reviews and figure out what I'm reading. What do other people think of the book? What parts are insufficient or distorted? Has newer research made it obsolete? Is the author the respected expert or some guy who wanted to get a movie made? Some books are the History Channel on paper and I don't need that. So I would add that you want to know where this book fits in the constellation of books on the topic before you even decide to read it.

Number 1 is a great reason to read on a Kindle or have your tablet next to you.

Number 2 is hard because some books have terrible maps. It may be that I don't know how to read them, but I've heard a lot of people complain. Of course, you have your tablet right there so you can find other maps of the events and look at them without having to flip back and forth.

OOBs can be problematic to track, though. Sometimes authors are interpolating from insufficient information, you could make yourself crazy.

Number 4 is essential if you don't want to make a fool of yourself.

I also read wikipedia first. I know people like to berate it, but it's very, very useful.

First, if I see an interesting book on a subject and reach for my wallet I ask myself – have I read the wikipedia page? No? Then maybe I'm not that interested in the topic. Saves a lot of money.

Second, the wikipedia page gets you oriented, you have the general outline before you start. That helps knowledge stick.

Third, if there is a controversy about some aspect of this subject wikipedia almost always mentions it explicitly. The author of a particular book might take one side and explain that without even mentioning that there is another point of view. If there is significant disagreement it's mentioned on wikipedia, and you'll know that you're reading just one side.

Lastly, context. Books can only cover so much. Good books often have an introduction or opening chapter that explain how the material in the book fits into the larger situation, but not always. Wikipedia or other references can fill in here. What was important before a battle and what was important after a battle are different. We often view historical events from our perspective, but what they men to us and what they meant to people at the outset can be completely different.

I took a college course long ago where they taught us to read with purpose. Rather than letting it be a passive experience, actively engage with the material, think about the author's premise, critique whether the author has demonstrated his evidence sufficiently.

Wikipedia can be very helpful for a non-controversial subject matter. If you want to read about the Second World War in general it's usually a good, if simplified resource.

If you want to read about Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Trump, Nagasaki then the data will churn frequently as different partisans come on and switch the entry to "their" side.

Once you realize this is the case, then by reading it with purpose, or responsibly then Wiki can be very helpful.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

It is usual to triangulate the sources which themselves have different sources or viewpoints so there is a balanced view.

suspicious old me would also look at the motivation of the author as that could influence the book and that motivation may be revealed by looking at the authors previous works (by reading them or by looking at the critics comments).

in academic circles we would also look at who paid for the research if anyone which may give a clue as to the viewpoint.

Wikipedia would confirm facts but not interpretation which is in the mind of the author.

5. Take notes. Mark passages (highlight, underline, sticky notes) for reread and research.

Wikipedia actually protects some controversial articles, but it's not perfect.

Andrew, re #2, in such cases it's often helpful to keep other books handy. I've been known to read a narrative of an ACW engagement with a Size Humongous map volume open to the appropriate page, and a volume with decent OOB ready to hand. (I understand why some OOB is extrapolated, but it MUST be marked as such. Usually it is, or it's obvious: When every regiment in a brigade shows up at the same strength, someone's divided the brigade total by the number of regiments, for instance.)

I find Wikipedia is more helpful--well, more honest--the further back one goes, and the further from politics and ideology. Its reliability for 20th & 21st Century public figures doesn't extend much past dates of birth and death, offices held and schools attended, but on Samian ware, you can take it to the bank.

@ Robert, I'm afraid I think you may have missed your preachers point. I suspect he's trying to say you should read it and apply it you yourself; i.e take responsibility for living it rather than just reading the words. Not quite something you need to do with a book in general.

Your list seems more designed to improve understanding, not quite the same thing.

Mark, my preacher was trying to say "read responsively," which we then did. He has a little trouble with that sort of thing. You don't do responsive readings?