[ahultgren]

A big advantage of taking the time to read a book, even if the book has just one central idea, is that it forces you to spend 5+ hours thinking on that idea. No summary can do that for you. I'd even go so far as to say that it's not even important which book or idea you spend that time on; just spending time with your own thoughts and imagination will teach you things no non-fiction or summary can.

I do agree that summaries and comments are useful, but they serve the same purpose as non-fiction rather than fiction.

[dharmon]

I generally agree, although some books don't need the week-long time to digest what they are saying and process the implications.

For most "pop" books, they are often either based on a long-form article (commonly New Yorker or The Economist) or have a long-form article that summarizes them. I have switched to just reading that instead and saving my reading time for more "meaty" books.

As some examples, off the top of my head: The Checklist Manifesto, Simple Rules, The Long Tail, anything by Gladwell. I didn't need to read the whole book of any of those; the long-form article covered it.

[bootload]

"A big advantage of taking the time to read a book, even if the book has just one central idea, is that it forces you to spend 5+ hours thinking on that idea. "

Exposing you to ^new^ ideas, ones not encountered before.

[udkl]

It also depends on how you approach the notes.

I for example make notes of the notes and then re-visit them frequently over the next few days. This helps me visualize and concretize the ideas in different ways since I'm revising them at different times. In the interim I'm trying to incorporate them in everyday life.

[georgecarlin]

Tbh this sounds like more work than just reading the book