Methods of Studying a Book

[ChristopherPaul]

How do you approach learning from a theological book?

Do you outline it, take notes, read it multiple times, underline, highlight, etc.?

What are some recommended techniques to retaining what is conveyed in a book?

 

[Peter]

Thanks for posting this, I was about to ask the PB a similiar question. I recommend the book "How to read a book" by Adler and Van Doren. Their precise dialectical method reminds me of a puritan book. My question was specifically going to be how people engage the scripture references in a theological book? Do you look them up, circle them, write them down?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Never "study" a book the first time through - you'll never get through it.

ALWAYS read a book straight through the first time, and the second time.

The third time, then start studying it. Yes, circle Scripture references, or mark things in the margins you want clarification or further studying on.

That is why it is so important not to waste your time reading drivel. You want to read good books with every book you pick up. Life is far too short to read through all the junk out there. Scholars and theologians will take time to do that. The church at large should take time to read things that will 1) edify themselves, 2) edify their families, 3) edify the church.

 

[VictorBravo]

I follow Matthew's approach with a little addition. I read straight through for about an hour and a half (if I'm lucky enough to have that span of time), and then, before getting up to stretch, I write a short note to myself about the pages read, the subject, the points made, and anything else that comes to mind. I do it from memory without going back. The note is rarely longer than a paragraph.

Then, when I read the book a second time, I review the note I made before reading. It helps me to practice identifying key points and to keep the general context in mind.

Vic

 

[Preach]

I'm sure this is not new for those on the PB, but we want to be active readers. I don't think it is possible for me to read anything without a pen in my hand. Interact with the text. Write in the margins any thoughts and questions you have for the author, for yourself, for God, etc.

That way, if the phone rings, or you are interruptyed, you can go back and pick up the train of thought. I have a minister colleague who does not read with a pen. He wants his pages to remain as pristine as when he got them. He recently got the Calvin commentaries on sale from CBD, but will not mark them up. His Bible is the same way.

Active reader. Active reader. Active reader.

 

[Ex Nihilo]

Originally posted by Preach
I'm sure this is not new for those on the PB, but we want to be active readers. I don't think it is possible for me to read anything without a pen in my hand. Interact with the text. Write in the margins any thoughts and questions you have for the author, for yourself, for God, etc.

That way, if the phone rings, or you are interruptyed, you can go back and pick up the train of thought. I have a minister colleague who does not read with a pen. He wants his pages to remain as pristine as when he got them. He recently got the Calvin commentaries on sale from CBD, but will not mark them up. His Bible is the same way.

Active reader. Active reader. Active reader.

Oh, no! Marking in the books? (Cringe!) It's a personal preference, but if I'm reading actively, I much prefer to take notes on another piece of paper. Once you mark the text, you have actually altered it, from my perspective. But it's purely a matter of individual taste.

I like reading some books multiple times, but I find that if I read with the intention of reading it again, I sometimes don't pay as much attention as I ought. My favorite method of studying a book is to outline it, sometimes in substantial detail. I can and have done this the first time through, but the outlines certainly are better when I have a better grasp of the overall development, which I gain if I have already read it.

 

[JohnV]

I too shudder at the thought of marking a book, especially a Bible. What I do, like Matt, is read first, and only sometimes take notes the first time through.

The method is a little scatter-brained to some, I suppose, but it works for me. And it depends on the book. Some books yield sources for the intellect in different ways than others. I read as much between the lines as I do the lines themselves. That is the historian tendency in me, I guess. Some books are great sources of interest even from seeming inoccuous lines or phrases, while others can be pregnant with a lot of flat air.

What I like to do is use a small binder-type notebook, one in which the pages can be removed and reinserted elsewhere. That is my favourite method. I'll take one page and make a couple of cardboard copies of it from an empty Cheerios box, with little tabs on it. Each one will be a divider for the different things that will come up: namely, the thrust and points of the book, particular main premises of the book which require more looking into, and issues arising out of the book. At least these three, for example, but perhaps more.

The idea is that I keep a category running at all times. I had a reason to read that book, and I address that reason in the third section. It will be present in some form in the next book I read, no matter the topical relationship.

I have at least three notebooks going at one time, with full notebooks ( they are full when they have about a dozen empty pages left ) going onto the ready shelf on my desk or night table. Right now I have six of them, writing in three, and referencing three more, while I am reading ( now studying ) Jus Divinum.

I take care what I read too. Right now, as I'm reading Jus Divinum, I am reading a history on the Canadian West, the ranchers and cowboys of Canada. This is a deliberate offset.

[Edited on 12-31-2005 by JohnV]

 

[Peter]

The great analogy for active reading is the image of a pitcher and a catcher. The author attempts to communicate his ideas to the reader who attempts receives them. The only thing passive in the transaction is the ball, ie, the book.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I have found the best way to get to "know a book" is to outline the book, or write a summary of the book. In seminary they made us write 3 sentecnes for every paragraph of Berkoff's Systematic. That took a LONG time, but it was well worth it in the end. You'll always come to intimately know a book through creating its outline.

 

[toddpedlar]

Ditto to Matt's suggestion - outlining, for me, has proven particularly useful for studying John Owen.

And to Evie, and others... it's YOUR book! Write in it!

 

[toddpedlar]

Originally posted by Peter
The great analogy for active reading is the image of a pitcher and a catcher. The author attempts to communicate his ideas to the reader who attempts receives them. The only thing passive in the transaction is the ball, ie, the book.

This is great... though in postmodern theory, the catcher can turn 90 degrees away from the pitcher, or even 180 degrees away, and still catch the pitch - and what he catches dictates what the pitcher "wrote"!

T

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by Ex Nihilo


Oh, no! Marking in the books? (Cringe!) It's a personal preference, but if I'm reading actively, I much prefer to take notes on another piece of paper. Once you mark the text, you have actually altered it, from my perspective. But it's purely a matter of individual taste.

to marking books.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

I usually read a book straight through without marking it, and then read it again with more scrutiny.

I never outlined a book. That sounds very time consuming, but effective.

I do refrain from marking up scripture. in my opinion it tends to distract from the text. Same goes for study bibles. They serve their purpose as secondary resources, but as a primary bible to read and meditate with, the notes tend to distract from thinking.

Thanks for the tips!

 

[Don]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
How do you approach learning from a theological book?

Do you outline it, take notes, read it multiple times, underline, highlight, etc.?

What are some recommended techniques to retaining what is conveyed in a book?

Try "How to Read a Book" by Mortimer Adler (I have made through the first 5 chapters). It is very good - don't let the title fool you. It was originally published in 1940 and discusses elementary, inspectional, analytical, and syntopical reading. It's pretty cheap on Amazon used. Also has good reviews from most.

 

[rmwilliamsjr]

Something likewise really useful is to write a review of the book when you finish it.
I write two, one short one to post to amazon in the customer reviews and one long one to blog.

it is amazing how reading in order to share, plus the emails i get over the reviews really helps me concentrate and review the book in my mind as i read. an excellent exercise.

there are several people here on the board that i would dearly love to see posting reviews to amazon, they have quite a following, i get emails every week about them.

to weigh in on the marking.
i studied with the best reader i ever knew, a older Pastor, who marked up his books so badly that they were almost unreadable to anyone else. His explanation was that the books were a tool to get inside his head and therefore his notes were a conversation with the author.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Don

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
How do you approach learning from a theological book?

Do you outline it, take notes, read it multiple times, underline, highlight, etc.?

What are some recommended techniques to retaining what is conveyed in a book?

Try "How to Read a Book" by Mortimer Adler (I have made through the first 5 chapters). It is very good - don't let the title fool you. It was originally published in 1940 and discusses elementary, inspectional, analytical, and syntopical reading. It's pretty cheap on Amazon used. Also has good reviews from most.

Excellent book, highly recommended!

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Richard Baxter's Advice on Reading