I had a very smart professor friend briefly who gave me this advice on reading and note taking; He said he prefered to only take any notes, make any underlines, or write anything in the margins on the second reading, never the first. His logic was that he claimed it of utmost importance to get through an initial reading of a book as quickly as possible, and he also said that you wouldn't know what to take notes on the first time through anyways, and that if a book is really worth taking notes from, it's worth reading twice. Your opinions?

>>24501437 (OP)
I just remember what I read.

>>24501437 (OP)
I agree, it's a huge waste of time to comb through a book on the first read when you don't even know what you're looking for. If it's worth re-reading to you then it's worth extracting as much as possible the second time or the third, etc.

>>24501437 (OP)
"Underlining" doesn't take time. And even good books are not worth reading twice in their entirety (we are talking about nonfiction here). You are better off referring to your notes. Your professor friend to "save" time is reading books twice. I wouldn't say that's very clever. Maybe in his specific field where you HAVE to read books multiple times (say philosophy) to really get it, that might be applicable, but in general, non-fiction books are not ones you should have to read twice.

>>24501437 (OP)
>reading a book twice

>>24501437 (OP)
If a book is worth reading twice, it's worth reading continuously twice. If you're an NPC with no inner monologue and you have to write your thoughts out to adequately reflect on your reading, then do that on the first readthrough. If you don't require your thoughts to be externalized, then just read the damn book. If you feel the need to read it again, then read it again.