Analytical Reading (from “How to Read a Book”)

Here I summarise the 11 rules of analytical reading, from How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren. You can find the full summary of the book here.

The rules of analytical reading also apply to reading things other than books, but will sometimes have to be adapted.

Is analytical reading too much work?

All the “rules” for analytical reading are aspirational. Few people read any book in this ideal way and you certainly don’t need to attempt this for all books. Many are only worth an inspectional read. The effort you put in varies depending on the book and your purpose in reading it. However, Adler and Van Doren generally prioritise quality over quantity in reading.

Though the authors propose many “rules” for reading, the idea is that they become second nature with practice. Reading is a complex skill like skiing. You don’t think about all the separate acts that go into making a smooth turn when you execute a turn. However, when you’re learning, you have to learn the components of a turn separately. After practice, you’ll be able to link the components together effortlessly. [This is the same idea of “chunking” from A Mind for Numbers.] And, although Adler and Van Doren recommend writing out your thoughts, you may not have to do this thoroughly with practice – a rough approximation may be enough.

Three stages of analytical reading

The first stage of analytical reading (outlining) is top-down. You go from the book as a whole to its constituent parts, then drill down into propositions and arguments. It helps you answer the question: “What is the book about as a whole?”

The second stage (interpretation) is bottom-up. You start from terms (found in the words and phrases used) to propositions (found in sentences) up to paragraphs (arguments). The first and second stages meet in the middle, at the level of propositions and arguments. This second stage answers the question: “What is being said in detail, and how?”

The third stage (criticising) answers the questions: “Is it true?” and “What of it?”

First stage of analytical reading: outline a book’s structure

This stage comprises four rules which will show you a book’s structure. The four rules are:

1. Know what kind of book you are reading.
2. State the unity of the whole book as briefly as possible.
3. Set out the major parts of the book and show how these are organised into a whole.
4. Find out what the author’s problems were.

Rule 1: Know what kind of book you are reading

Different books convey different types of knowledge and use different ways to communicate that knowledge. We therefore need to tailor our approaches to different types of books to get the most out of them.

Know what kind of book you are reading as early as possible, preferably before you even start reading. Is it fiction or expository (non-fiction)? If fiction, is it a novel, play, or poem? If non-fiction, is it a theoretical or practical book? What kind of theoretical book?

• Theoretical books tell you that something is the case. They may raise questions about the validity or truth of something. History, science and philosophy are traditional examples of theoretical books.
• Practical books in contrast teach you how to do something. They often use language like “should”, “ought”, “good”, “bad’, “ends” and “means”. Adler and Van Doren classify some books as “practical” that you may not expect. For example, books about morality and ethics because they teach you how to live your life and economics, which teach us, either as individuals or societies, how to organise our economic lives and the consequences of different actions. (However, some economics books are theoretical if they merely report the results of studies of economic behaviour.)

Rule 2: State the unity of the book briefly

You should be able to state the main point of a book in a single sentence or, at most, a short paragraph. If you can’t do this briefly, you haven’t seen the unity of the book.

Pay attention to the title, preface and chapter headings in a book. Unlike fiction, non-fiction authors don’t need to keep you in suspense. They may summarise their book in the very first paragraph.

Rule 3: Set out the major parts of the book and show how these are organised into a whole.

Each major part of the book may have its own internal structure (and these internal structures may differ from each other). You need to outline each part of the book and show how the parts are related to each other and to the unity of the book as a whole. This rule is closely related to rule 2 – unless you understand how the parts fit together, you can’t understand the whole.

Although you should look at how the author has divided their book by chapters and parts, you don’t have to follow their structure. Use them as guides, but it’s up to you to develop your own outline. The best books have the most intelligible structure and are also the most readable. Books that do not are more annoying to read. [Agree. Structure is so underrated in writing.]

Rule 4: Find out what the author’s problems were

Theoretical books may ask questions such as: Does something exist? What kind of thing is it? What caused it to exist?

Practical books may ask questions such as: What ends should we seek? What means should we choose to achieve a given end? Under various conditions, what is the better or worse thing to do?

Second stage of analytical reading: interpreting a book’s contents

We need this stage because language is not a perfect medium for thought and contains much ambiguity. Unless you understand which term an author intended by a particular word, the author won’t have communicated their knowledge to you.

The rules here apply primarily to non-fiction books. The four rules are:

5. Find the important words and come to terms with the author
6. Find the most important sentences and discover their propositions
7. Find the basic arguments in the connection of sentences
8. Find out what the author’s solutions are

Each rule has two aspects: one that deal with words (the grammatical aspect); and one that deals with their meanings or terms (the logical aspect). Words and terms are not the same thing. A word can have many meanings; a term is an unambiguous use of a word.

Rule 5: Find the important words and “come to terms” with the author

The vast majority of words in a book are not that important. The author will use them like they would in ordinary conversation, relying on context to clarify the meaning. Important words tend to be those that give you the most trouble. Philosophers for example often take an ordinary word and give it a special, technical meaning. A good author will anticipate possible confusion and clarify their meaning, such as by defining them upfront. They may also make important words stand out by using italics or quotes.

After finding the important words, see if they have multiple meanings. If so, use the context of surrounding words to work out which meaning is intended. Of course, this is harder if you don’t understand the surrounding words. It’s like a jigsaw puzzle – the more pieces that fit, the easier it is to fill in the remaining parts.

Another problem arises if the author uses different words (synonyms) to refer to the same term. Authors often mix up words for variety. For example, How to Read a Book uses the terms reading “for insight” and “for enlightenment” to mean the same thing.

Rule 6: Find the most important sentences and discover their propositions

The sentences you find difficult to understand will often be the most important. They will frequently also contain the most important words (see Rule 5). The most important sentences are those that express the judgments underlying the author’s whole argument. Books usually contain much more than their bare arguments – they also contain supporting reasons, consequences, examples, counterarguments, etc.

A proposition is an assertion of what the author thinks is true. Sentences contain propositions but they are not the same thing. A sentence is a grammatical unit; a proposition is a logical unit. Some sentences are questions rather than propositions, while others express wishes rather than assertions.

Furthermore, one sentence can include multiple propositions (and the same proposition can be expressed differently in different sentences). Even a simple sentence like “John Doe signed the lease on March 24” expresses two propositions:

• John Doe signed the lease; and
• The date he signed the lease was on March 24.

Being able to distil propositions is particularly important when you get to syntopical reading. Different authors use different ways of expressing the same idea, so you must find the propositions to compare books effectively. Otherwise, you will confuse disagreement and agreement.

Adler and Van Doren suggest two tests to check that you understand an author’s propositions:

• State it in your own words. If you cannot do this, then you have only grasped the author’s words, not their thoughts or ideas.
• Give an example. If you cannot give an example (even a hypothetical one) to illustrate the proposition, that’s a sign you don’t understand it. However, this is harder to do this for some propositions (e.g. scientific propositions) than for others.

Rule 7: Find the basic arguments in the connection of sentences

Propositions must be supported by reasons and arguments, else they are just expressions of an author’s opinion. Arguments are found in paragraphs but, again, these are not the same thing. A paragraph is a grammatical unit; an argument is a logical unit.

An argument is a sequence of propositions, some of which provide support for others. An argument can be expressed in a single sentence; in a paragraph or part of one; or even multiple paragraphs. Many paragraphs won’t contain any arguments (and these can be read relatively quickly).

When you read carefully, each step in an argument should be explicit. It’s common for (not-so-honest) authors to leave out relevant points that are unhelpful to their arguments. Watch out for those.

Some tips to help find the author’s arguments:

• Conclusions should come with reasons. If you find a conclusion, look for the reasons. If you find the reasons first, look for the conclusion.
• Distinguish inductive reasoning from deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning starts with some facts and reaches a generalisation from those facts. Deductive reasoning starts with a generalisation and then reaches conclusions from that generalisation. An author may seek to prove their propositions with both forms of reasoning, but sometimes only one form is available.
• Pay attention to assumptions and self-evident propositions. An author may or may not explicitly state their assumption and what they take to be self-evident. Not everything can be proved and arguments have to start somewhere. Self-evident propositions cannot be proven but they should also be undeniable.

Rule 8: Find out what the author’s solutions are

This rule brings together the first stage of analytical reading with the second stage. The last rule in the first stage (rule 4) looked at the problems the author was trying to solve.

The last rule in the second stage then asks: Which problems did they succeed in solving? Which ones did they fail to solve? Where the author failed, did they realise it?

Third stage of analytical reading: criticising a book fairly

Reading does not stop with understanding a book – you also have to judge it fairly. The only critical judgements you can make are: I agree; I disagree; or I suspend judgement. When you suspend judgement, you’re saying the author hasn’t convinced you of their argument. It can also be an act of criticism.

The three rules in this stage are:

9. Don’t start criticising a book until you’ve understood it
10. Don’t disagree disputatiously or contentiously
11. Give reasons for any criticism

Rule 9: Don’t start criticising a book until you’ve understood it

If criticism is not based on understanding, it should be ignored. This third stage must therefore follow the first two stages – you can’t fairly criticise a book until you’ve understood it. For example, if you disagree with the statement, “All men are equal” because you take it literally to mean that all men are equal in strength, intelligence, etc, your disagreement is irrelevant. The statement “All men are equal” is actually a normative claim that all men should have equal political rights.

Saying “I don’t understand” is also a critical judgement, but it’s more a criticism of you than of the book unless you’ve tried your hardest to understand it. The presumption is in favour of the book, especially if it is a good one. [Eh, I think the authors put this bar too high. Poorly written books don’t deserve any presumption in their favour. It’s not worth the reader’s time and efforts to try to understand such books, particularly if other books express the same ideas more clearly. Adler and Van Doren seem to agree, as they later say the vast majority of books are not worth a close reading. So I think all they’re trying to say here is, “Don’t give up on understanding too easily”.]

If you read only part of a book, you should hesitate to criticise. You should also hesitate if the book needs to be read in the context of other books that you haven’t read. For example, Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason depends on his Critique of Practical Reason, Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations must be read in the context of The Theory of the Moral Sentiments and Marx’s Communist Manifesto should be read alongside Capital.

Rule 10: Don’t disagree disputatiously or contentiously

Don’t read a book looking for things to disagree with. Read books sympathetically, trying to see the author’s point of view. Focus on learning the truth, rather than winning the argument. Be aware of your own emotions that may contribute to the disagreement.

Make your own assumptions and prejudices explicit. The author may be justified in using different assumptions. Arguing about assumptions is rarely useful.

Rule 11: Give reasons for any criticism

Learn how to distinguish between knowledge and opinion. Knowledge can be defended with reasons and evidence. If someone makes a claim with no reasons, you can treat it as their opinion only. This requirement to give reasons applies to your criticism as much as it does to the author’s propositions.

All rational people can agree on things that are matters of knowledge. The vast majority of such disagreements are based on misunderstanding or ignorance. Misunderstandings arise because language is an imperfect medium for conveying thoughts. Ignorance occurs when there is an inequality of knowledge. These disagreements can be resolved. When you disagree with a book you read, keep in mind the possibility that you have misunderstood it or that you are ignorant of some pertinent knowledge.

If you understand but disagree with an author, you have to show where they are:

• Uninformed or Misinformed. These two are related – if an author is misinformed, they are also uninformed in some way. To support this claim, you have to show what knowledge the author lacks and how it would impact their conclusion.
• Illogical. The two main logical fallacies are the non sequitur and inconsistency. A non sequitur is when the conclusion does not follow from the reasons given. An inconsistency is when the author has said two things that are incompatible with each other.
• Incomplete. All books are incomplete in some respect, but the analysis may be incomplete if it doesn’t solve the problems the author set out to solve. It may be a more useful criteria for comparing books in the same field.
  If you cannot show any of these, you must agree. If you can only show the analysis is incomplete, you must either agree in part or suspend judgement.