Talking to a book instead of reading it
Instead of reading thick things from the first page, I ask first and open only the chapters that touch my question. Terms of service, statutes, licence documents, and books. I read less and keep more.
In the first post I wrote that I no longer read books from the beginning, and that one line drew the most reaction. It seems to have read as "I do not read books". The opposite is true. I read thick things more deeply than before. I just do not start at page one. I ask first, and open only what touches my question.
Thick things are not only books. Terms of service, statutes, software licence documents: the things a small company owner runs into every week. This post is about how I read those, and why a book works the same way.
Thick things are written in the author's order
Reading anything cover to cover means following the author's order. The author writes for every reader. I am one reader with one question.
Of three hundred clauses in a terms document, two concern me. Of dozens of articles in a statute, one applies to my task today. Of twelve chapters in a book, two or three touch my problem. Reading the rest is not diligence. It is handing my time to someone else's order.
How I actually read three of them
All three really happened.
Terms of service. I wanted to build an automation on top of a service, and before building I had to know whether its terms allowed it. I did not read the terms. I asked the AI which clauses dealt with automated access and account sharing. Two came back. I opened those two in the original text. One of them forbade what I was about to build. I found out before building, so I did not build it.
A statute. After opening a new website I discovered that the domain on my e-commerce business registration was the old one. I did not read the law. I described my situation and asked which articles covered the duty to file a change and the duty to display business details. Two articles came back and I read them on the national legislation portal. One applied to me, the other did not. Our legal person confirmed that reading.
A contract. I first looked at a contract through a summary. The summary was clear and the conclusion seemed settled. Then I found the clause in the signed full text and read it: the summary had dropped two qualifiers, and those two reversed the conclusion. Since then a summary only tells me which clause to read; the judgement is made on the signed original. The AI finds the clause. I do the reading.
The same order every time. Set my question, ask where it lives, read only that part in the original, restate it in my own words to check.
The order for a book
A book is the same. Written out:
One. Ask what question the book is trying to answer. If its question and mine differ, it is not the book to read now.
Two. Describe my problem in a paragraph and ask which chapters touch it. Usually two or three.
Three. Open those chapters. Not a summary. The chapters themselves.
Four. Summarise what I read in my own words and check it. The fifth of the seven questions. This is where feeling that I understood and having understood part ways.
Five. Ask which chapter to read next. If there is one, go there. If not, close the book. That is allowed.
This is not the same as reading a summary
Summary services and this method are opposites. A summary is sentences someone else chose. This is the original text of chapters my question chose. Reading only a summary is still following the book's order, just faster, and I am still not in it.
Reading the original is the point. Asking is only for deciding where to read. That is why I read less and keep more: every chapter I opened, I opened because of my own question.