| The right way to read such a book really depends on your learning style and personal circumstances. Personally, I tend to skim; I find most texts to be far too verbose. But then if I find a part that I'm interested in or want to explore at length, then I'd read it more in-depth. I think classical books suffer from a lack of features like hyperlinks. This is, authors either have to say something or not say it; they can't just say something concisely with links for readers who want to read more (Note below). As a result, textbooks tend to be cluttered. Skimming helps you to cut through the clutter to get what you need. But since you'll almost certainly miss points while skimming, it'll tend to involve bouncing back-and-forth rather than a straight read-through. --- Note: Of course, footnotes like this, along with appendices and references, are partial substitutes for active content. They're far more limited (Meta-note below) and have a much higher overhead on both reader and writer, but they're still often better than cramming everything into the body of a text. --- Meta-note: Because, seriously, who wants to trace recursively nested footnotes? For more discussion on this topic, please see "_References: Why they're inconvenient_", p.156. |