Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Non-fiction books you read more than once.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-08 23:28

If somebody is willing to read a particular non-fiction book twice or more, then it’s at least worth checking out.  And that helps sift the wheat from the chaff in a plethora of books that could be a potentially HUGE waste of time. I must find more diamonds in the rough.  

Also, if you could also explain why, it would help me (and others) understand the appeal that motivates you to read it more than once.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-08 23:32

Bah, the subject was too long and I had to shorten it.
I want you guys to list at least one non-fiction book you've read twice or more.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-09 1:07

I think I've read A Theory of Fun twice. Or at least I should.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-09 2:38

>>3

Are you sure you wrote that title correctly? I looked for it on Amazon.com and found titles that were similar, but not the same.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-09 3:47

>>4
It's this one. I guess the title is more properly A Theory of Fun for Game Design. But it says A Theory of Fun on the cover in big letters.

http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Game-Design-Raph-Koster/dp/1932111972/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241855124&sr=8-1

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-11 15:32

The Tao of Writing by Ralph Wahlstrom was a good read, and helpful.  Does anyone know of any similar books that could get someone who draws/paints out of a creative block?

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-11 16:56

>>6
If you're willing to extrapolate, perhaps a book like Effortless Mastery could be helpful. It's specifically oriented to musicians, but the concepts therein about approaching your activity without going into high-stress mode could be helpful.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-14 16:21

>>5

From the reviews it looks like this doesn't cover fun or game design

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-15 1:31

It does.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-16 0:50

"How the Mind Works" by Steven Pinker
"Thinking in pictures" by Temple Grandin

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-22 4:11

I've only gotten halfway through "Godel, Escher, and Bach", but I can tell that when I finish reading it, I'm going to go right back to the front page and start over. It's just that interesting.

Otherwise the only nonfiction book i've read more than once is Attacking Faulty Reasoning, which is a book on informal logic and argumentation. I've only read it cover-to-cover twice, but I still go back to it and re-read parts of it. It's an excellent resource for people who care about testing the validity of their beliefs.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-23 0:32

"The Way Of The Ninja - Secret Techniques" by Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi, "The Illusatrated Tolkien Encyclopedia" by David Day, and those Star Wars information books are all easy to read more than once, are at least pore through countless times. Also, books on the history of weapons and warfare tend to be good reads.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-23 0:36

*"or at least,"

Not "are at least".

>>12

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-23 13:31

The Body Electric by Robert Becker and Gary Selden.

I haven't actually read it twice yet, but I know I will eventually.  It's amazing.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-30 15:38

So I guess this thread is proof that /book/ isn't a huge fan of non-fiction?

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 20:11

I like how jsut about everyone in this thread has said that they didn't read the books twice, but they want to or they will eventually. typical of /book/

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 23:31

Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman by Richard Feynman

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-01 7:58

A Directory Of Discarded Ideas by John Grant, 1981.
Picked it up for about 20p from a library book sale when I was twelve. It's a collection of all the mad theories from science that have been proven wrong over the ages. I have re-read it many times, the theories are mental in it and the author has a lot of humour.
Available here;
http://www.amazon.com/directory-discarded-ideas-John-Grant/dp/0906798140
The cover looks different to my copy.
http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/5944/dsc00129w.jpg

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-01 8:06

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-01 19:13

>>16

Yeah, I noticed that too (minus the cynicism). It doesn't really bother me tho, as the question is merely a way of fleshing out nonfiction titles that people genuinely feel is worth reading. And what better evidence of that than having read a book more than once?

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-02 12:07

"Walden, or Life in the woods" by Henry David Thoreau

inb4 haters say that some of it was fiction.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-03 20:43

>>20
i just find it a mixture of funny, saddening, and irritating that in a world where people have extremely little time to read they tend not to reread things they've read. because they don't have time to or simply don't want to waste what little time they have rereading something as opposed to reading something new.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-03 20:46

>>22
What's wrong with that? There are new books coming out all the time and old books I need to get to, and you think I should frequently read the same book multiple times? If I read 24/7, I still wouldn't have time for that.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-07 2:32

I've read "The Three Pillars of Zen" more times than I can count, and I just feel refreshed after reading this book.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-07 6:39

I'm reading through Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" for the second time, since I didn't really pay much attention to it the first time and I still really, really suck at those things.

I've managed to alienate myself from two online BB communities in as many weeks and I was really feeling down, so I figured what the fuck?

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-07 15:46

>>23

I don't think that's what he or she was saying. You do not have to read every book you've bothered to read once, again and again. However, there is a lot of learning and understanding being lost because most people never give good books that second time around. They should re-read if only to see how their understanding of a book has changed with their newer, more 'up-to-date', mind.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-07 17:06

>>26
It implied that rereading should be done often, which just isn't practical.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-07 18:30

Unix For Dummies

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List