1/ Just finished reading 15 book summaries created as part of my anti-book club, in which everyone reads and summarizes different books and shares the summaries using a standard template
Conversation
2/ First, it was a fantastic experience, condensing somewhere around 100 hours of reading (plus summarizing) by 15 ppl into 4 hours of condensed insights. I feel practically drunk on new knowledge
1
9
3/ But of the 15, I only want to read 1, which brings up some disturbing possibilities: either a summary (even a multi-level, in-depth one) simply can’t communicate a book’s value, or worse, most books just aren’t worth reading once the main points are revealed
3
17
4/ All books were drawn from a curated list chosen specifically because of their relevance to the book I’m writing, so I’d think my interest would be very high. But maybe that’s exactly the point: they mostly seemed like familiar rehashes of things I know already
1
7
5/ I also got the strong impression that precise timing would play a decisive role. Writing a post on lean or just-in-time, I’d want super detailed notes on The Toyota Way. But not before
1
6
6/ If I was facilitating a workshop soon, I’d want Six Thinking Hats ready to go, but not before. If I was training a dog, Don’t Shoot the Dog would be super useful. This confirms my belief that just in time learning is essential and much more practical
3
7
Replying to
I thought of doing this once but realized that for me writer-to-reader is not a commodity dumb pipe that can be shared. Reading is not BitTorrent.
1
1
You have to see the book through the eyes of somebody to whom it can mean more than to you, so their take can include/emulate your hypothetical take had you read it. They have to read-as-you. Approach the book like you would. So at least narrowly emulate you.
Replying to
I thought I could create this effect with double opt-in: Praxis members only, and then only those who opt in. I thought them knowing my writing and ideas would give them a lens that would produce choices that mirrored what I would’ve chosen
1
Replying to
Emulation is more than shared input context though. They have to think like you or more richly in a philosophical sense. Two iron chefs given the same ingredient do very different things with it. Maybe same Myers-Briggs type would work better.
3
1
Show replies
Only easy if you’re yourself a commodity type, like an MBA factory empty-suit executive consuming the same airport books the same way as anyone else.

