Tom Hanks Reviews the Children’s Novel ‘Olivetti,’ by Allie Millington by [[Tom Hanks]]

Fancy Topology Book by [[The Math Sorcerer]]

1974 text on topology by Murray Eisenberg

Topology: A Short Introduction by [[badbettybooks]]

only the most surface level review here from the perspective of a relatively unsophisticated undergraduate

Book Review: “Impossible Creatures,” by Katherine Rundell by [[Laura Miller]] in New York Times

I hadn't put her Donne work together with her children's writing...

Read Sun 8/25/2024 7:02 PM

available at: https://www.unz.com/print/SaturdayRev-1940mar09-00006/

Barzun, Jacques. "Read, Do Not Run" Review of How to Read a Book, by Mortimer J. Adler. The Saturday Review, March 9, 1940.

It looks like the Stephen King entry has a picture of the book cover taped into it. This is an interesting idea.

How much time do book reviewers really spend on either a book or their actual review? Often it's a rushed process at best. How much can a reader get out of a quick read and gut reaction?

Perhaps things may be good from some of the best of the best reviewers, but generally, the author likely put more work into their work than the reviewer did.

Left Behind by [[Nancy Isenberg]]

This is of interest because Isenberg's White Trash came out in January 2016 just a five months before Vance's Hillbilly Elegy was released. As a result she didn't get to reference it in her book.

[[Curtis McHale]] in Duly Noted – Jorge Arango

Arango's book sounds like what I expected it would.

The Notebook by Roland Allen review: a history of scribbling by [[Thomas W Hodgkinson]]

The Notebook by Roland Allen review – notes on living by [[Sukhdev Sandhu]]

Not so much of a review as the dumping out of most of the reviewer's highlights from the book. I get the impression that he at least read it and paid attention, but what did he actually think of it?

Bruce, James. “The Godless Bible.” Book Review of The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary by Robert Alter. Law & Liberty, July 15, 2022. https://lawliberty.org/book-review/the-godless-bible/.

How to Take Smart Notes: One Simple Technique to Boost Writing, Learning and Thinking – for Students, Academics and Nonfiction Book Writers (my reading notes)<br /> by Raul Pacheco-Vega

How to Write a Thesis (Umberto Eco) - my reading notes<br /> by Raul Pacheco-Vega

perfunctory positive review; no great insight

Should You Read Antinet Zettelkasten by Scott P Scheper<br /> by Curtis McHale

Generally mirrors most of my opinion.

Odd that there haven't been many reviews of this...

Courtney, Jennifer Pooler. “A Review of Rewriting: How to Do Things with Texts.” The Journal of Effective Teaching 7, no. 1 (2007): 74–77.

Review of: Harris, Joseph. Rewriting: How To Do Things With Texts. Logan: Utah State University Press, 2006. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/9248.

Jones, Christopher P. “Zettelkasten.” Edited by R. Merkelbach and J. Stauber. The Classical Review 50, no. 1 (2000): 170–72.

Nothing at all about the titular word zettelkasten, but rather a negative review of a book on inscriptions...

Tiago's book follows the general method of the commonplace book, but relies more heavily on a folder-based method and places far less emphasis and value on having a solid index. There isn't any real focus on linking ideas other than putting some things together in the same folder. His experience with the history of the space in feels like it only goes back to some early Ryan Holiday blog posts. He erroneously credits Luhmann with inventing the zettelkasten and Anne-Laure Le Cunff created digital gardens. He's already retracted these in sketch errata here: https://www.buildingasecondbrain.com/endnotes.

I'll give him at least some credit that there is some reasonable evidence that he actually used his system to write his own book, but the number and depth of his references and experience is exceptionally shallow given the number of years he's been in the space, particularly professionally. He also has some interesting anecdotes and examples of various people including and array of artists and writers which aren't frequently mentioned in the note taking space, so I'll give him points for some diversity of players as well. I'm mostly left with the feeling that he wrote the book because of the general adage that "thought leaders in their space should have a published book in their area to have credibility". Whether or not one can call him a thought leader for "re-inventing" something that Rudolphus Agricola and Desiderius Erasmus firmly ensconced into Western culture about 500 years ago is debatable.

Stylistically, I'd call his prose a bit florid and too often self-help-y. The four letter acronyms become a bit much after a while. It wavers dangerously close to those who are prone to the sirens' call of the #ProductivityPorn space.

If you've read a handful of the big articles in the note taking, tools for thought, digital gardens, zettelkasten space, Ahren's book, or regularly keep up with r/antinet or r/Zettelkasten, chances are that you'll be sorely disappointed and not find much insight. If you have friends that don't need the horsepower of Ahrens or zettelkasten, then it might be a reasonable substitute, but then it could have been half the length for the reader.

https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6183

Book review

Cook, Trevor. “Review: Blair, Ann M. Too Much to Know: Managing Scholarly Information Before the Modern Age. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010. Pp. Xv, 397. ISBN 978-0-300-11251-1 (Hardcover) $45.” Renaissance and Reformation 33, no. 4 (December 12, 2011): 109–11. https://doi.org/10.33137/rr.v33i4.15975.

Note that they've accidentally used the word "in" instead of "Before" in the title of the book.

Stages of annotation in the medieval period

When is Hypothes.is going to branch out into the business of professional readers to add aids to texts?! :)

Link this to the professional summary industry that reads books and summarizes them for busy executives

Link this to the annotations studied by Owen Gingerich in The Book Nobody Read.

https://bookmarks.reviews/