[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 17 KB, 290x200, 33266.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13163522 No.13163522 [Reply] [Original]

Will reading an entire encyclopedia a good idea?

>> No.13163532

>>13163522
yes start from a-z

>> No.13164342

>>13163522
Unironically yes if you have the autistic drive to do it.

>> No.13164345

>>13163522
Feynman and his p-a-p-a did so

>> No.13164354

>>13163522
Feynman and his p-a-p-a related each entry to their little Jewish apartment
“Oh vey, that Dinosaur would reach our window and stick his neck in!”
“P-a-p-a!”

>> No.13164359

>>13163522
Maybe if you literally have autism.

>> No.13164372

>>13163522
No, but I do enjoy reading about biology on wikipedia, I'd guess a lot of people do.

>> No.13164388

>>13163522
Yes, Borges did it

>> No.13164723

>>13163522
Yes, Bill Gates did it. I did this with the Encyclopedia set at my local elementary school and ended up frauding my intelligence to get skipped three grades. Now I'm a burnout though.

>> No.13164733

>>13164342
I made it through F - and then got burned out.

>> No.13164743

>>13163522
If you're a NEET with Asperger's then why not?

>> No.13164751

>>13163522
What encyclopedia would you even read cover to cover? Britannica?

>> No.13164971

>>13163522
>t. self-taught man
just control yourself around little boys in the library

>> No.13164986

Yes, James Joyce did it.

>> No.13165220

>>13164986
Proofs?

>> No.13165229

>>13163522
Read a grammar book first.

>> No.13165276

>>13163522
No because every few years the majority of the stuff in an encyclopedia will be false.

>> No.13165310

>>13165276
This. Just read Wikipedia cover to cover OP.

>> No.13165318

>>13164723
Different but same

>> No.13165412

>>13165318
Different how anon?

>> No.13165475

>>13164751
If I had a choice then I would do Britannica. I did not. I only had the New International Encyclopedia. Britannica is a better product.

>> No.13167099

>>13163522
Should I also read the dictionary?

>> No.13167138

>>13167099
I love reading old dictionaries and dictionaries of rare dialects.

>> No.13167140

>>13163522
Only if you eat the entire collection afterwards. Through consumption you will you be able to truly obtain the knowledge within.

>> No.13167199

Yes Elon Musk did it

>> No.13167240

Only if it´s in good sized and easy to read typeface.

>> No.13167413

>Tfw my only encyclopaedia is a 1984 Funkall and Wagner.

>> No.13167622

>>13167099
>>13167199
How do you even do this? Do you just read it or are you suppose to take notes?

>> No.13167660

Have sex

>> No.13168932

>>13167622
>How do you even do this?
I have two different methods. One, start at A and skim until I see something interesting - then read all of the etymology surrounding the word. Two, reference a specific word as you would ordinarily do, but also review all of the surrounding words to see what other words share the same root meaning. An IRL dictionary stomps web resources when used in this fashion.
>Do you just read it or are you suppose to take notes?
Make sure you have fun or you will not stay with it. This should not be a task, but a lifelong habit. Don't bust your balls on it but make notes of what you find most interesting. Use the Skinner Box effect to self-program and make a game out of it.

>> No.13170388

>>13163522
Let’s start an encyclopedia general

>> No.13170732

>>13170388
All 3 of us?

>> No.13170819

>>13170732
4

>> No.13170871

>>13170388
/encyclopedia/ is the ultimate /lit/mus test

>> No.13170945
File: 145 KB, 460x395, pepe 08.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13170945

No you stupid nigger you have to read a thesaurus first

>> No.13171084
File: 657 KB, 848x761, 1553081459819.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13171084

>tfw my family threw out used their encyclopedias as stool stabilizers and completely destroyed them

>> No.13171164
File: 138 KB, 648x533, wank man.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13171164

>>13163522
There's already a book like this. (Pretty funny, from memory there's a weird interlude about him donating sperm at a clinic for some reason)

>> No.13171169

I used to read them growing up for fun. There's nothing wrong with just learning for the sake of learning/fun.

>> No.13171176

>>13163522
Yes, Shakespeare did it.

>> No.13171499

>>13171176
The encyclopedia didn't even exist yet anon...

>> No.13171532

>>13171499
>The encyclopedia didn't even exist yet anon...
Without necessarily believing it to be true, it is possible:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia

>> No.13171557

>>13163522
I like to read the 1911 Britannica on any subject pre-20th century.

>> No.13171570

>>13171557
Redpill me on this. Where do you even find one that old?

>> No.13171574

>>13171570
It's all available online in various places.

>> No.13171579

>>13171574
Where? Link? Should I be able to access this with my university login shit as long as you have access to Britannica shit?

>> No.13171581

>>13171557
I maintain a stock of dictionaries for probably similar reasons:
>1934 Oxford
>1990s Webster's
>Black's Law 4th Edition
>a couple of specialty technical dictionaries

>> No.13171596

>>13171579
For fuck's sakes, it's public domain. Wikisource has most of it, there's also JRank, Studylight, and Archive.org

>> No.13171600

>>13171570
Not him, but people literally toss encyclopedias in the garbage; and have done so for decades. They take a lot of space and become a nuisance. They are a low cost item on the used market. Hit the dirtbag used bookstores and eBay.

>> No.13171884

>>13171596
>>13171600
Based. What are the next steps in me becoming a big brain genius?

>> No.13171995

yes, mia malkova did it

>> No.13172219

>>13171995
v clever anon!

>> No.13172272

>>13171884
52 years of assiduously applied autism.

>> No.13172460

>>13165229
based

>> No.13174060

>>13172272
>52 years of assiduously applied autism.
Why 52 and not 42?

>> No.13174447

>>13174060
Grant Morrison > Douglas Adams

>> No.13174474

>>13163522
For what purpose? If the process itself doesn't sound inherently exciting I would say probably not. Maybe you would have more fuel for dinner party conversation, but who goes to dinner parties anymore? It may spark your creativity, but seeing as you don't have stacks of cash to dump on any idea/opportunity you might recognize from that general pool of knowledge I would say that your time would be better spent elsewhere.

>> No.13174496

>>13174474
>he can't think outside of functionality and praxis
People study because it is in their nature to be curious. They are intrigued and replenished by knowledge.
However if you really need a practical reason for it, you can always start a debate stream and BTFO normies.

>> No.13174529

No. It's the equivalent of reading a bunch of wiki articles, you won't retain any useful knowledge, so why bother? They were just meant to be the wikis before wiki, but wiki exists now.

I actually sorta did this as a teenager because I was stuck on a ranch in my teenage years with no electronics and some boomer's encyclopedia shelf. Out of sheer boredom I read them, and it's much like a wiki binge. It's pointless. You're better off actually studying a subject in detail.

>> No.13174546

>>13174496
>If the process itself doesn't sound inherently exciting I would say probably not.
Was 3 words all you bothered to read before replying?

>> No.13174560

>>13174529
>It's the equivalent of reading a bunch of wiki articles
Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

>> No.13174605

>>13174560
yes, compared to what you should be doing

>> No.13174630

>>13163522
An all-encompassing encyclopedia like the Britannica? Probably not, it's an insane timesink and you're probably not as "interested in everything" as you think you are.

>> No.13174645

>>13174605
Using wikis as a primer establishes a solid foundation for further study. Not every topic of study should be a thriller with a surprise ending.

>> No.13174740

>>13164372
why not anon

>> No.13174838

>>13163522
>Will reading an entire encyclopedia a good idea?
Yeah, maybe. I got tired of that after the first three years of my study. You've got to be a man to read this book.

What happens if you've read everything?

So I started reading it again a few months into my second year. I've read most of this book now, but I've also read and re-read parts myself, re-read several of the poems and some sentences and, I'm still getting used to some of this writing, and some of the grammar. It's a very nice book, by the way.

>> No.13174853

>>13163522
did this when i was a kid and had literally nothing else to do. i memorized a bunch of useless garbage that i can't remember anymore. pretty pointless t b h.

>> No.13175203

>>13174529
>you won't retain any useful knowledge, so why bother?
Lmao what fucking brainlet are you? Not everybody forgets 99% of what you read - you can also take notes on what peaks your interest, which will help with retention

>> No.13175356

>>13174529
based and honest

>>13175203
cringe and inconvincible

>> No.13175482

>>13175356
Boring and annoyingpilled

>> No.13175833

>>13165220
>joyce
>proof
good one

>> No.13176092

>>13175356
Ladies and gentlemen - I present Dr. Sigmund Freud.

>> No.13176106

>>13163522
Clark Ashton Smith did it twice.

>> No.13176118

>>13175203
>peaks your interest
Who's the real brainlet?

>> No.13176927

>>13176106
Based, anyone else?

>> No.13176972

Hmm I never thought about this... My dad has the Encyclopedia Americana 1960's edition. While it's true that you might not retain most of what you read. You will have some idea about it. And certain subjects will stick depending on your interest which might motivate you to do further reading.