That’s really true. The basic human problems tend to look pretty much the same through time—love, loss, anger, jealousy, pride, competitiveness, and so on. Princeton University Press has that wonderful series, Ancient Wisdom for Modern Readers. The presentations might change, but those age-old voices still ring true—or at least helpful.
Joel, there's a good article in the current Harpers by Tom Bissell that captures Stoics and their subsequent (mis)interpretations by modern self-help artists. But also a piece that shows the ways that Bissell used Stoicism to work through the death of his father -- in a way that probably old Marcus would feel was true. "Time is a Violent Stream," May 2023.
A big yes on this. We have a cultural blindspot that invites us to screen out what isn't trending, current and fashionable. Lest we become . . . one of them, the uncool. The old books show the bigger picture, They also act like ballast does in a ship, stopping us from being top heavy and increase the power of the rudder.
In the section "Thinking New by Thinking Old", in the sentence that begins "Instructively, Oliver got that idea from reading John Stuart Miller," -- shouldn't that be John Stuart "Mill"?
"Hanania argues that most books are a waste of time". By this I infer he means, "based on what I've been reading lately." Obviously many books are, and always have been trash. We're supposed to know that, and put them down. But we should also be on the look-out for the craft of well-written words. I can appreciate a well-written book in a genre I don't even care for. A great author can convey a volume in an economy of words. You can learn from them even if the subject matter is of no particular interest. As for me, I am finding great work in all kinds of old books, I will never give them up. They can have them when they can take them from my cold dead hands. GREAT PIECE! I am, right now, officially stealing the example of "Me Magazine". This is an excellent piece of writing.
Well I hope so! I get the feeling here I've only only had in a few other circumstances. Mainly that "I'm around my own kind". The word people. People who admire a well-written sentence more than a gymnasts posture, or high-performance auto parts.
There's a divide between fiction and non-fiction. Most non-fiction can be summarized. Great fiction is great because the length and the style and the story all fit together. Great fiction is best read multiple times. You never quite completely "get it," because each reading reveals something new I find, both about the book and about me.
I get that and don’t want to downplay great fiction. But I don’t think nonfiction can simply be summarized. Perhaps some can. But there’s no way to distill Augustine’s Confessions or Montaigne’s Essays.
And, again per the argument above, part of the benefit of reading is seeing how the person built their train of thought. It can sharpen your own thinking.
For my part (not that it adds anything intelligent to the debate you were commenting on), a few years ago, I started trying to make my way through a list of "old" books -- fiction and non-fiction alike dubbed the "greats" by brighter minds than mine, etc, etc. And while some were well worth the effort, others attracted a certain amount of hype and status but seemed to offer little more. These were books you read because you were told they were "great".
(Of course, that is also true of some modern books -- Infinite Jest comes to mind...for me, whatever was great about it was lost in thousands and thousands of words of nothing. It was a real slog.)
However, while I gained few useful insights by reading the "raw" source material of these older books, I have repeatedly been delighted that others have. That is, I am no Ryan Holiday. I have read some of the source material he leans on in his own work -- Marcus Aurelius comes to mind -- and I readily admit I have found Ryan's use of the source material to be much more compelling and valuable than my own efforts have gained me. Likewise, I enjoyed the Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. He references Montaigne. I read Montaigne and I preferred Taleb's take on Montaigne. Haha.
The truth is, I think there will always be those who are able gain greater insights and wisdom from certain books. Insights and stories that I will never be able to find on my own. Reading the source material hasn't improved my understanding of Shakespeare. I still lean on LitChart for help. My own view is that reading old books may not gain most people a whole lot that they can't glean from other modern sources -- be it editorials, summaries, essays, or retellings. In that sense, I think Hanania may be right, most books may be a waste of time for most people.
But therein lies the rub.
In my humble opinion, anyone who is possessed of any curiosity whatsoever may eventually find themselves picking up an old book, or three, and may be quite surprised to discover that their own passion and philosophy is perfectly captured and encapulated in the ink of that book. The next Holiday or Taleb or Popova or Whitehead will find themselves transfixed and will bring forth new insights and new stories having read those old books and will share those insights and stories with those of us who haven't read them, or won't read them, or didn't benefit from having reading them.
Discouraging people from reading old books may deprive all us of those new thinkers and story tellers and how much darker would the world be without those future voices.
In my view, people may surprise themselves to discover that they are the new thinker or story teller after having read one of those old books and connecting with the material. That to me is the real joy of the "slog" through old books -- to discover the bits and pieces that do resonate. I didn't get much from Montaigne but I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoy Seneca. I didn't get much value from Dostoevsky but I have really enjoyed Tolstoy. I read those books because others, again brighter minds than my own, read them and used them to build their own frameworks and philosophies and narratives that did resonate with me. If they hadn't, not only would I have lost their insights and stories built on the scaffolding of those older works, but I would also have lost the chance to discover some of my own. Of course, I'm no thinker or story teller, haha, so perhaps mine is narrow view.
At any rate, thanks again for sharing Joel and for taking the time to articulate your thoughts. I am really enjoying your substack (now that I have figured things out a bit) and reading your thoughts and observations.
I have to admit I’m getting triggered reading the Hanania parts in the post. And proceeded to be even more triggered when I read the original post 😤
“B-But the old books have way, way more value than the recent ones! None of these statements make sense!” I thought in disbelief.
Luckily the rest of your post calmed me down as I nodded along to your counter-arguments. I think the main issue in his post is the over-generalisation. I get triggered every time people do this, mostly just to garner attention by means of contradiction. Usually they’ll post a bold statement without further elaboration, without explaining the nuances, without anything solid to back themselves up.
‘I don’t believe in great books’, for instance.
Well, what kind of ‘great books’ is he referring to? What books would be in his list of ‘overrated and useless great books’? Fiction or non-fiction? Psychoanalysis or philosophy? Politics or economics? Does he mean Freud, Machiavelli, Shakespeare, or Homer? What has he read? What is he currently reading?
It’s impossible to have a discussion if we each come to the table with our own selection of ‘great books’. This term should be clearly laid out and defined in the original post. Otherwise, any discussion is moot.
Another statement I have a problem with:
‘the idea that someone writing more than say four hundred years ago could have deep insights into modern issues strikes me as farcical’
Well, sir, if you haven’t figured out by now, most of the modern issues are actually old issues. So it makes even more sense to go back to old books. ‘The older the problem, the older the solution’ - from Naval Ravikant, a highly successful angel investor, the guru of most self-help bros.
Sorry to go into a rant but I can’t help it. Love your post!
Do they still count as old books if I download them digitally over the internet in seconds to my iPad? 🙂
Downside: I don’t get to use digital books like you can real physical books, too show off how much you don’t to your friends or on video calls with shelves piled with books you’ve probably never read.
It’s all about decoration and showing off not knowledge with old books, obviously 😉
"The process of thinking is what produces most of the value of reading. Engaging with ideas, not simply registering them, is what helps."
We make an effort to get our heads around something. You learn the texture. You learn the shape. We move and stretch until something loosens. Until matter becomes the expression of something imagined, and it changes everything.
I also think there is something very reassuring about realising that people many years ago were grappling with many of the issues we do
That’s really true. The basic human problems tend to look pretty much the same through time—love, loss, anger, jealousy, pride, competitiveness, and so on. Princeton University Press has that wonderful series, Ancient Wisdom for Modern Readers. The presentations might change, but those age-old voices still ring true—or at least helpful.
I shall look into that series. It sounds like my cup of tea. Thanks!
I’ve got seven in the series at this point. They’re excellent!
Joel, there's a good article in the current Harpers by Tom Bissell that captures Stoics and their subsequent (mis)interpretations by modern self-help artists. But also a piece that shows the ways that Bissell used Stoicism to work through the death of his father -- in a way that probably old Marcus would feel was true. "Time is a Violent Stream," May 2023.
Thanks for this article.
That’s excellent. Thanks for sharing. I’m going to look that up.
A big yes on this. We have a cultural blindspot that invites us to screen out what isn't trending, current and fashionable. Lest we become . . . one of them, the uncool. The old books show the bigger picture, They also act like ballast does in a ship, stopping us from being top heavy and increase the power of the rudder.
Yes, exactly. And like Mark said, great metaphor.
Apt metaphor: the ballast, the ship, the rudder!
Thanks you guys, I like hearing that!
You are in good company, C.S. Lewis endorsed the reading of old books. He offers some sage advice. See the link below. https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/resources/reflections-february-2010/
Yes, totally. I’m a big fan of that essay!
In the section "Thinking New by Thinking Old", in the sentence that begins "Instructively, Oliver got that idea from reading John Stuart Miller," -- shouldn't that be John Stuart "Mill"?
Er, definitely. What a goofy mistake :) Thanks for pointing it out!
Fixed. Thanks again!
"Hanania argues that most books are a waste of time". By this I infer he means, "based on what I've been reading lately." Obviously many books are, and always have been trash. We're supposed to know that, and put them down. But we should also be on the look-out for the craft of well-written words. I can appreciate a well-written book in a genre I don't even care for. A great author can convey a volume in an economy of words. You can learn from them even if the subject matter is of no particular interest. As for me, I am finding great work in all kinds of old books, I will never give them up. They can have them when they can take them from my cold dead hands. GREAT PIECE! I am, right now, officially stealing the example of "Me Magazine". This is an excellent piece of writing.
Thanks, Warren! Sounds like you’re a kindred soul.
Well I hope so! I get the feeling here I've only only had in a few other circumstances. Mainly that "I'm around my own kind". The word people. People who admire a well-written sentence more than a gymnasts posture, or high-performance auto parts.
There's a divide between fiction and non-fiction. Most non-fiction can be summarized. Great fiction is great because the length and the style and the story all fit together. Great fiction is best read multiple times. You never quite completely "get it," because each reading reveals something new I find, both about the book and about me.
I get that and don’t want to downplay great fiction. But I don’t think nonfiction can simply be summarized. Perhaps some can. But there’s no way to distill Augustine’s Confessions or Montaigne’s Essays.
And, again per the argument above, part of the benefit of reading is seeing how the person built their train of thought. It can sharpen your own thinking.
I agree about some non fiction. Montaigne or, another example, Orwell. Some non-fiction rises to the level of literature.
Definitely.
Another great piece, Joel.
For my part (not that it adds anything intelligent to the debate you were commenting on), a few years ago, I started trying to make my way through a list of "old" books -- fiction and non-fiction alike dubbed the "greats" by brighter minds than mine, etc, etc. And while some were well worth the effort, others attracted a certain amount of hype and status but seemed to offer little more. These were books you read because you were told they were "great".
(Of course, that is also true of some modern books -- Infinite Jest comes to mind...for me, whatever was great about it was lost in thousands and thousands of words of nothing. It was a real slog.)
However, while I gained few useful insights by reading the "raw" source material of these older books, I have repeatedly been delighted that others have. That is, I am no Ryan Holiday. I have read some of the source material he leans on in his own work -- Marcus Aurelius comes to mind -- and I readily admit I have found Ryan's use of the source material to be much more compelling and valuable than my own efforts have gained me. Likewise, I enjoyed the Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. He references Montaigne. I read Montaigne and I preferred Taleb's take on Montaigne. Haha.
The truth is, I think there will always be those who are able gain greater insights and wisdom from certain books. Insights and stories that I will never be able to find on my own. Reading the source material hasn't improved my understanding of Shakespeare. I still lean on LitChart for help. My own view is that reading old books may not gain most people a whole lot that they can't glean from other modern sources -- be it editorials, summaries, essays, or retellings. In that sense, I think Hanania may be right, most books may be a waste of time for most people.
But therein lies the rub.
In my humble opinion, anyone who is possessed of any curiosity whatsoever may eventually find themselves picking up an old book, or three, and may be quite surprised to discover that their own passion and philosophy is perfectly captured and encapulated in the ink of that book. The next Holiday or Taleb or Popova or Whitehead will find themselves transfixed and will bring forth new insights and new stories having read those old books and will share those insights and stories with those of us who haven't read them, or won't read them, or didn't benefit from having reading them.
Discouraging people from reading old books may deprive all us of those new thinkers and story tellers and how much darker would the world be without those future voices.
In my view, people may surprise themselves to discover that they are the new thinker or story teller after having read one of those old books and connecting with the material. That to me is the real joy of the "slog" through old books -- to discover the bits and pieces that do resonate. I didn't get much from Montaigne but I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoy Seneca. I didn't get much value from Dostoevsky but I have really enjoyed Tolstoy. I read those books because others, again brighter minds than my own, read them and used them to build their own frameworks and philosophies and narratives that did resonate with me. If they hadn't, not only would I have lost their insights and stories built on the scaffolding of those older works, but I would also have lost the chance to discover some of my own. Of course, I'm no thinker or story teller, haha, so perhaps mine is narrow view.
At any rate, thanks again for sharing Joel and for taking the time to articulate your thoughts. I am really enjoying your substack (now that I have figured things out a bit) and reading your thoughts and observations.
All the best.
I have to admit I’m getting triggered reading the Hanania parts in the post. And proceeded to be even more triggered when I read the original post 😤
“B-But the old books have way, way more value than the recent ones! None of these statements make sense!” I thought in disbelief.
Luckily the rest of your post calmed me down as I nodded along to your counter-arguments. I think the main issue in his post is the over-generalisation. I get triggered every time people do this, mostly just to garner attention by means of contradiction. Usually they’ll post a bold statement without further elaboration, without explaining the nuances, without anything solid to back themselves up.
‘I don’t believe in great books’, for instance.
Well, what kind of ‘great books’ is he referring to? What books would be in his list of ‘overrated and useless great books’? Fiction or non-fiction? Psychoanalysis or philosophy? Politics or economics? Does he mean Freud, Machiavelli, Shakespeare, or Homer? What has he read? What is he currently reading?
It’s impossible to have a discussion if we each come to the table with our own selection of ‘great books’. This term should be clearly laid out and defined in the original post. Otherwise, any discussion is moot.
Another statement I have a problem with:
‘the idea that someone writing more than say four hundred years ago could have deep insights into modern issues strikes me as farcical’
Well, sir, if you haven’t figured out by now, most of the modern issues are actually old issues. So it makes even more sense to go back to old books. ‘The older the problem, the older the solution’ - from Naval Ravikant, a highly successful angel investor, the guru of most self-help bros.
Sorry to go into a rant but I can’t help it. Love your post!
Do they still count as old books if I download them digitally over the internet in seconds to my iPad? 🙂
Downside: I don’t get to use digital books like you can real physical books, too show off how much you don’t to your friends or on video calls with shelves piled with books you’ve probably never read.
It’s all about decoration and showing off not knowledge with old books, obviously 😉
"The process of thinking is what produces most of the value of reading. Engaging with ideas, not simply registering them, is what helps."
We make an effort to get our heads around something. You learn the texture. You learn the shape. We move and stretch until something loosens. Until matter becomes the expression of something imagined, and it changes everything.