Chapter 18 Chapter 16 How to Read History Books

"History", like "poetry", has multiple meanings.In order for this chapter to be helpful to you, we must agree with you on these two words—that is, how we use them. First, history as fact is not the same as history as a written record of the tacts.Obviously, we are going to use the latter concept here, because we are talking about "reading" and facts cannot be read.There are many ways to write records in the so-called history books.The collection of information about a particular event or period can be referred to as the history of that period or event.Orally interviewing a dictation of a party, or collecting such a dictation, may also be referred to as a history of that event or those involved.Other works with quite different starting points, such as personal diaries or letter collections, can also be organized into the history of an era.The word history can be used, and it is really used in almost all kinds of readings written for a certain period of time or events of interest to readers.

The word "history" that we will use below has both narrower and broader meanings.The so-called narrower sense means that we want to limit ourselves to a certain period of time, a certain event or a series of events in the past, so as to make a more or less formal description that is basically a narrative style.This is also the traditional meaning of "history," and we needn't apologize for that.As with our definition for lyric poetry, we think you'll agree with the general definition we've adopted, and we'll focus on this general genre. But, in the broader part, we are broader than many of today's popular definitions.We believe that although not all historians agree, we still emphasize that history is basically narrative, and the so-called events refer to "story", and these two words can help us understand the basic meaning.Even if it is a collection of a bunch of petitions, it still tells a "story".These stories may not have been explained - because the historian may not have put the material into a "meaningful" order.But whether there is order or not, there is an implicit theme in it.Otherwise, we think that such a collection cannot be called the history of that era.

It doesn't really matter, however, whether historians agree with our idea of ​​history.The history books we're going to discuss come in all shapes and sizes, and you'll probably want to read at least one or two of them.At this point we hope to help you pull your hair out. ※ Elusive historical facts Maybe you've been on a jury and heard something as simple as a car accident.Maybe you're joining a high court jury that has to decide whether one man killed another.If you've done both, you know how difficult it is for a man to recall what he saw, to reconstruct the past—not even a small, simple incident.

What the court cares about is recent events and witnesses who witnessed the scene, and the requirements for evidence are very strict.An eyewitness cannot assume anything, can't guess, can't guarantee, can't evaluate (except under very careful situational control).Of course, he can't lie either. With all of this rigorous evidence, and all the scrutiny, can you, as a member of a jury, be 100 percent sure that you really know what happened? The setting of the law is that you don't have to be 100 percent sure.Because there is always some doubt in the minds of those who set juries by law.In fact, in order for the trial to have such and such different decisions, although the law allows these doubts to affect your judgment, it must be "reasonable".In other words, your doubts must be strong enough to bother your conscience.

Historians are concerned with events that have already happened, and mostly events that happened a long time ago.All eyewitnesses to the events were dead, and the evidence they presented was not presented in court—that is, without strict, careful scrutiny.Such witnesses are often guessing, extrapolating, estimating, assuming, and assuming.We can't see their faces, so we can guess whether they are lying (even if we can really judge a person that way).Nor have they been rigorously tested.There's no guarantee they really know what they're talking about. Therefore, if it is difficult for a person to know whether he understands even a simple matter, just as it is difficult for a jury in a court to decide, then it is even more difficult to know what really happened in history up.A "fact" of history—as much as we feel to believe what those two words mean—is the most elusive thing in the world.

Of course, a certain historical fact can be determined with certainty. On April 12, 1861, the United States started the Civil War at Fort Sumter; on April 9, 1865, General Lee surrendered to General Grant at the Court of Appomitex, ending the Civil War.Everyone will agree on these dates.It is unlikely, though not impossible, that calendars were incorrect across the United States at the time. But even if we do know when the Civil War started and ended, what do we learn from it?In fact, these dates have indeed been questioned—not because all calendars are wrong, but because the debate is over whether the Civil War should have started in the fall of 1860, when Lincoln was elected president, and ended five days after General Lee surrendered , Lincoln was assassinated.Others claim that the Civil War should have started earlier—five to ten or twenty years earlier than in 1861—and we also know that by 1865 some of the sleeper regions of the United States were still at war, so the North Victory should be postponed until May, June or July 1865.Some people even think that the Civil War in the United States will not end until today—unless the black people in the United States can gain complete freedom and equality, or the southern states can break away from federal rule, or the federal government can issue control of the states. Accepted by all Americans, otherwise the American Civil War would never be called over.

You can say that at least we know that whether or not the Civil War started with the Battle of Sumter, the battle did take place on April 12, 1861.There is no doubt about this—we mentioned earlier that this is historically true within certain constraints.But why the Battle of Sumter?This is obviously another question.Was civil war still avoidable after that battle?If we could, would we care so much about such a battle that took place on such a spring day more than a century ago?If we didn't care -- and we don't care about the many battles that actually happened, but we didn't know anything about -- would the battle of Sumter still be a significant historical fact?

※ The theory of history If we had to classify, we should classify history, that is, the stories of the past—as fiction, not science—or if we could not classify history, if we could keep history within these two categories, then we would usually admit , history is closer to fiction than to science. This is not to say that historians make up facts, as poets or novelists do.However, stressing too much that these writers are making things up can be self-inflicted.We said they were creating a world.This new world is not radically different from the one we inhabit—in fact, it better not be—and a poet is also human, learning through the human senses.He sees things the same way we do (although perhaps from a better or slightly different perspective).His characters also speak the same language as us (otherwise we wouldn't be able to trust them).Only in dreams do people create whole new worlds that are truly different—but even in the most absurd dreams, these imagined events and creatures are drawn from everyday lived experience, only recombined in strange and new ways Just get up.

Of course, a good historian does not make up the past.He feels himself responsible for certain ideas, facts, or precise statements.It must not be forgotten, though, that historians must codify some things.Either he finds a common pattern in many events, or he tries to fit a pattern.He must assume that he knows why these historical figures did what they did.He may have a set of theories or philosophies, like God governs human affairs, and compile a history that fits his theories.Or, he would drop any model of staying out of it or being in it, emphasizing that he was simply reporting events as they happened.But even so, he can't help pointing out the reasons for the events and the motives for the actions.When you read history books, the most basic cognition is to know which way the author is operating.

Not wanting to take this or that stance requires assuming that people don't do things for a purpose, or that if they do, it's hard to detect—in other words, history has no patterns at all. Tolstoy had such a theory of history.Of course, he is not a historian, but a novelist.But many historians hold the same view, especially more recent historians.Tolstoy believed that the causes of human behavior are too many and too complex, and the motives are hidden so deep in the subconscious that we have no way of knowing why certain things happen. Because theories about history are different, because the historian's theory will affect his description of historical events, so if we really want to understand the history of an event or period, it is necessary to read more related treatises.All the more so if the events we are interested in have special meaning to us.Perhaps it is of special significance for every American to know some history about the Civil War.We still live in the aftermath of that great and tragic conflict, and we live in the world that it created.But it is impossible to fully understand this history if we only observe it through the perspective of one person, one-sided judgment, or some modern academic historian.If one day, we open a new history of the American Civil War and see the author write: "A fair and objective history of the American Civil War—Talking from the perspective of the South", then this author seems to be very serious.Maybe he is, maybe such impartiality is really possible.In any case, we think that every kind of history must be written from some point of view.In order to pursue the truth, we must observe from more and different angles.

※ Universality in history It is not always possible to read more than one kind of book about a historical event.When we can't, we have to admit that we don't have as many opportunities to ask questions in order to learn the relevant facts—to see what's really going on.That's not the only reason to read history, though.It might be argued that only the professional historian, the one who writes history, should rigorously examine his sources, carefully check them with other arguments to the contrary.If he knows what he needs to know about the subject, he will not be misunderstood.We, half-readers of history books, stand somewhere between professional historians and lay readers who read history for fun and without responsibility. Let us use Thucydides as an example.You may know that he wrote a history of the Peloponnesian War at the end of the fifth century BC, the only major history book of its time.Under such circumstances, no one can check whether his works are right or wrong.So, can we learn anything from books like this too? Greece is just a small country now.A war that took place before the 25th century really has little effect on us today.Everyone who participated in the war is long gone, and the special events that caused the war are long gone.The winner is now meaningless, and the loser no longer hurts.Those conquered and lost cities have turned to dust.In fact, if we stop and think about it, the only thing left of the Peloponnesian War seems to be the book of Thucydides. But such records are still important.Because the story of Thucydides - we still think it's good to use these two words - has influenced the history of human beings.Future generations of leaders will read Thucydides.They would find themselves in a position that seemed to share the fate of the brutally divided Greek city-states, which they compared themselves to Athens or Sparta.They use Thucydides as an excuse or a justification, or even a guide to a pattern of behavior.As a result, the history of the entire world has gradually been affected by slight but still perceptible changes because of some of the ideas of Thucydides in the 5th century BC.So we read the history of Thucydides not because of how accurately he described the world before he wrote, but because of the influence he had on what happened to future generations.Strange as it may sound, we read his books in order to understand what is going on. Aristotle said, "Poetry is more philosophical than history." What he meant was that poetry is more general, more universally influential.A good poem is not only a good poem at that time and place, but also a good poem at any time and place.Such poetry has meaning and power for all human beings.History is not universal like poetry.History is about events, poetry need not be.But a good history book is still universal. Thucydides said that he wrote history because he hoped that through the mistakes he observed, as well as the disasters he suffered personally and the suffering suffered by the country, future generations would not repeat the same mistakes.The mistakes he describes are not just for him personally or for Greece, but for humanity as a whole.The mistakes made by the Athenians and Spartans 2,500 years ago are still being made by people today—or at least very close mistakes—and it has been repeated over and over again since Thucydides. If you read history from a constrained perspective, if you just want to know what really happened, then you're not going to learn anything from Thucydides, or any good historian.If you really read Thucydides, you will even throw away the idea of ​​​​what happened at that time. History is a story from ancient times to the present.We are interested in the present—and the future.Part of the future is determined by the present.So you can learn about the future from history, even from someone like Thucydides who lived 2,000 years ago. In short, the two main points of reading history are: first, for the event or period you are interested in, read more than one history book as much as possible.Second, when reading history, one should not only care about what really happened at a certain time and place in the past, but also understand why people behaved in such and such ways in any time and space, especially now. ※ Questions to ask when reading history books Although history books are closer to fiction than to science, they can still be read as expository works, and should be read as such.Therefore, when we read history, we also ask the same basic questions as we read expository works.Because of the nature of history, we ask slightly different questions and expect slightly different answers. The first concern is that each history book has a specific and limited subject.It is surprising how often readers spot such themes easily, though not necessarily carefully enough to see the boundaries the author has set for himself.A book about the American Civil War is certainly not about the history of the world in the 19th century, and it may not be about the history of the American West in the 1860s.Although it shouldn't, it probably ignores the state of education, the history of the American Wild West, or the struggle for freedom in the United States.Therefore, if we are to read history well, we have to figure out what the book is talking about and what it is not talking about.Of course, if we are to criticize the book, we must know what it does not say.An author should not be blamed for not doing something he never intended to do. According to the second question, history books are telling a story, and this story, of course, happened at a specific time.The general schema structure is thus determined, and we need not search for it.But there are many ways to tell a story, and we must know what method the author uses to tell the story.Does he divide the whole book into chapters according to chronology, period or generation?Or set chapters according to other rules?Did he deal with the economic history of the period in one chapter, and wars, religious movements, and the production of literature in another chapter?Which of these is most important to him?If we can find that out, if we can find out from the chapters of his story what he values ​​most, we can learn more about him.We may not agree with him on the matter, but we can still learn from him. There are two ways of criticizing history.We can criticize—but always after we have fully understood the meaning of the book—that the history book is not realistic enough.Maybe we feel that people just don't act like that.Even if the historian provides sources, even if we know these are relevant facts, we still feel that he has misunderstood facts, that his judgments have been distorted, or that he has failed to grasp human nature or human things.We may feel this way, for example, about the absence of economic matters in the work of some older historians.We will also hold a skeptical attitude towards some "heroes" who are selfless and have too many noble sentiments described in other books. On the other hand, we would think—especially if we have special research on this topic—that the authors misused the data.We get a little offended when we find out that he hasn't read a book we've read.His knowledge of the matter may be wrong.In this case, he is not writing a good history book.We expect a historian to have perfect knowledge. The first criticism is more important.A good historian is both storyteller and scientist.He must know that some things could have happened, just as some eyewitnesses or writers say that some things did happen. On the last question: what does this have to do with me?There is probably no work of literature that affects human behavior as much as history.The philosophy of satire and utopianism has little influence on human beings.We do hope that the world is better, but we are rarely moved by the advice of some authors who only sarcasm reality and distinguish the difference between ideal and reality.History tells us what humans have done in the past, and it often leads us to change and try to be a better version of ourselves.In general, statesmen are more rewarded by training in history than in any other training.History will suggest something possible because that's what people before have done.If something has been done, it is likely to be done again—or avoided. Therefore, the answer to the question "what does it have to do with me" lies in the practical aspect, that is, the aspect of your political behavior.This is why it is very important to read history books well.Unfortunately, political leaders often act on the basis of historical knowledge, but that is not enough.The world has become so small and dangerous that everyone should start reading history well. ※ How to read biography and autobiography A biography is the story of a real person.This kind of work has always had a mixed tradition, so it also maintains a mixed character. Some biographers may object to such claims.In general, though, a biography is a narrative about a life, a history, a man or woman, and a group of people.Biography, therefore, suffers from the same problems as history.Readers ask the same question—what is the author's purpose?What conditions does his so-called truth contain? — This is also the question to ask when reading any book. There are many types of biographies. A "definitive" biography is an exhaustive and complete scholarly report on the life of a person important enough to warrant such a concluding biography.Final biography should never be written about a living person.This type of biography is usually written after several incomplete biographies have appeared.And there will always be some incompleteness in the biographies that come out first.In writing such a biography, the author has to read all sources and letters, and also to check a large amount of contemporary history.Because this ability to collect data is not the same as the ability to write a good book, "final" biographies are usually not easy to read.This is the most unfortunate point.An academic book doesn't have to be hard to read.Boswell's Life of Johnson is a great biography, but it's brilliant.This is indeed a definitive biography (although other Johnson biographies have since appeared), but it is very unique and interesting. A definitive biography is part of history—a history of a man and the times in which he lived, as seen through his own eyes.This kind of biography should be read in the same way as history. "Authorized" biographies are another matter.Such work is usually performed by an heir, or a friend of an important person.Because of the care with which they write, mistakes made by this person, or achievements achieved, are embellished.Sometimes it's good work, too, because the author has the advantage—and other authors don't—to see material in the hands of all those involved.Granted biographies cannot, of course, be given the same credit as definitive biographies.Reading this kind of book cannot be the same as reading general history books. Readers must understand that the author may be biased. To see him. The authorized biography is a history, but a very different one.We can wonder what kind of stakeholder would want us to know about a person's private life, but we don't have to expect to know the truth about that person's private life.When reading an authorized biography, the book usually tells us about the background of the times, people's living habits and attitudes, and the accepted behavior patterns at that time-while also making some hints and inferences about unacceptable behavior.We can no more really know the truth about a man's life than we can hope to know the truth about a battle if we only read one-sided official biography.To get the truth, we must read all the official documents, ask those who were there at the time, and use our minds to sort out the chaos.Definitive biographies have already done this, and authorized biographies (which are the category of nearly all living biographies) have much to explore. What remains is a biography between the definitive and authorized versions.Perhaps we may call this kind of biography general biography.In this kind of biography we want the author to be correct, to be informed.What we hope most is to go beyond another time and space and see a person's true face.Humans are curious creatures, especially when it comes to another human being. Such a book, though less trustworthy than a definitive biography, is a good read.If the world were without Izaak Walton as his friend, the poets John Donne and George Herbert wrote Lives (Wharton The most famous is of course The Compleat Angler], or John Tyndall's Faraday the Discoverer for his friend Michael Faraday , the world will be much worse. Some biographies are didactic and have a moral purpose.These kinds of biographies are rarely written now, but they were common in the past. (Of course, there are such biographies in children's books.) Plutarch's Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans is such a biography.Plutarch told people about the past of the Greeks and Romans in order to help contemporary people have the same nobility, and to help them avoid falling into the mistakes that the great men of the past often - or did - make.This is a wonderful work.Although there are many accounts of a certain character in the book, we do not read this book as a biography of gathering sources, but as a reading of life in general.The protagonists in the book are interesting characters, good and bad, but never bland.Plutarch himself understood this.He said that he was originally going to write another book, but in the process of writing, he found that after "letting these characters go in and out of their houses one by one", he was the one who benefited the most and was greatly inspired. In addition, other historical works written by Plutarch also have considerable influence on later generations.For example, he pointed out that Alexander the Great imitated the lifestyle of Achilles (he learned it from Homer), so many conquerors of later generations also imitated the lifestyle of Alexander the Great written by Plutarch. Autobiography presents different interesting questions.The first thing to ask is, has anyone actually written a true autobiography?If understanding other people's lives is difficult, understanding your own is even more difficult.Of course, all autobiographies are about unfinished lives. When no one can refute you, you may cover up the truth, or exaggerate the truth, which is inevitable.Everyone has some secrets they don't want to share, everyone has fantasies about themselves and is unlikely to admit that those fantasies are wrong.In any case, while it's unlikely that a true autobiography will be written, it's also unlikely that an entire book will be filled with lies.Just as no one can tell a perfect lie, an autobiography tells us something about the author even if the author wants to cover up some facts. It is easy to think that Rousseau's, or some other work of the same period (about the middle of the eighteenth century), is the beginning of what could truly be called autobiography.This ignores the likes of Augustine's Confessions and Montaigne's Essays.The real error is not here yet.In fact, almost anything anyone writes about on any subject is somewhat autobiographical.Like Plato's (Republic), Milton's or Goethe's "Faust" (Faust), there are very strong personal shadows—it's just that we can't identify them one by one.If we are interested in humanity, within reason, we will read any book with the other eye open for the personal shadow of the author. Autobiographies, when carried too far, can fall into what is known as pathetic fallacy, but this need not be overly worrying.But we have to remember that no words are written by themselves - the words we read are organized and written by people.Plato and Aristotle said some similar things and also said different things.But even if they totally agree with each other, they can't write the same book because they are different people.We can even find something hidden in Aquinas's Summa Theologica, a work so obviously laid out. So-called formal autobiography is not a new literary form.No one can ever completely detach themselves from their work.Montaigne said: "I am not shaping my work, but my work is shaping me. A book and the author are one, closely related to the self, and a part of the overall life." He also Said: "Anyone can know me from my book, and know my book from me." This is not only true for Montaigne. Whitman talked about his "Leaves of Grass" Shi said: "This is not just a book. When you come into contact with this book, you are also in touch with a life." Are there other important points when reading biographies and autobiographies?There is one more important reminder here.No matter how many secrets such books, especially autobiographies, reveal about the author, we don't need to spend a lot of time studying the author's unspoken secrets.In addition, since this kind of book is more like a literary novel than a narrative or philosophical book, it is a very special kind of history book, so we still have a little bit to remind everyone.You should remember, of course, that if you want to know a man's life, you should read as much as you can find, including his account of his own life (if he ever wrote one).Reading a biography is like reading history, and like reading why.Be a little skeptical about any autobiography, and remember not to judge a book until you know it.As to the question "What is this book to me?" we can only say: biography, like history, may lead to some practical, conscientious action. Biography is illuminating. That is the essence of life. Stories, often the stories of successful people's lives—can also serve as guides in our lives. ※ How to read about current events We said that the rules of analytical reading apply to any work, not just books.Now we have to adjust this statement. Analytical reading is not always necessary.Much of what we read does not require the effort and skill of analytical reading, which is what we call Level 3 reading.In addition, although such reading skills do not have to be used, four basic questions must be asked when reading.Of course, these questions must be asked even when you are dealing with the newspapers, magazines, books on contemporary topics that we spend so much of our lives reading. After all, history didn't stop a thousand or a hundred years ago, the world continued to go on, and men and women continued to write about what was going on in the world and how things were evolving.Perhaps modern history cannot compare with Thucydides' works, but this is for future generations to judge.As individuals and citizens of the world, we have an obligation to understand the world around us. The next problem is to know what is actually happening at the moment.We use the word "really" for a purpose.In French, the word "actualites" is used to represent newsreels.The so-called current events are very similar to the word "news".How do we get news, and how do we know that the news we get is true? You will immediately see that the problems we face are the same as the problems of history itself.Just as we can't be sure what was true in the past, we can't be sure that what we've got is fact—nor can we be sure that what we know is fact now.But we still have to try to understand the real situation. If we could be anywhere at the same time, tune in to all the conversations on Earth, and see into the hearts of all living beings, we could be sure that we knew what was really going on.But being human is inherently limited, and we can only rely on other people's reports.The so-called reporter is someone who can grasp what happened in a small area, and then report these things in newspapers, magazines or books.Our sources of information depend on them. In theory, a reporter, of whatever kind, should be like a clear glass through which the truth is reflected—or transmitted.But the human mind is not clear glass, not a very good reflective material, and our minds are not very good filters when the truth shines through.It excludes what it considers to be unreal.Of course, a reporter should not report what he believes to be untrue.However, he can also make mistakes. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance, when reading coverage of current events, to know who is writing it.The point here is not to get to know the reporter, but to know what state of mind he is writing in.There are many types of filter journalists, and to understand what kind of filter a reporter is wearing, we must ask a series of questions.This litany of questions is relevant to any kind of work that reports on the status quo.These questions are: (1) What is this author trying to prove? (2) Who is he trying to convince? (3) What is his special knowledge? (4) What is the special language he uses? (5) Does he really know what he's talking about? In general, we can assume that books about current events try to prove something.Usually, this thing is also easy to spot.The main content of the book is usually written on the jacket.Even if it doesn't appear on the cover, it will appear in the author's foreword. After asking what the author is trying to prove, you have to ask who is the author trying to convince?Is this book for those "in the know"—are you one of them?那本书是不是写给一小群读过作者的描绘之后能快速采取某种行动的读者，或者，就是为一般人写的？如果你并不属于作者所诉求的对象，可能你就不会有兴趣阅读这样的一本书。 接下来，你要发现作者假设你拥有哪种特定的知识。这里所说的“知识”含意很广，说成“观念”或“偏见”可能还更适合一些。许多作者只是为了同意他看法的读者而写书。如果你不同意作者的假设，读这样的书只会使你光火而已。 作者认为你与他一起分享的假设，有时很难察觉出来。巴兹尔·威利(Basil Willey)在《17世纪背景》（The Seventeenth Century Background)一书中说： 想要知道一个人惯用的假设是极为困难的，所谓'以教条为事实，在运用形上学的帮助以及长期苦思之后，你会发现教条就是教条，却绝不是事实。他继续说明要找出不同时代的“以教条为事实”的例子很容易，而这也是他在书中想要做的事。无论如何，阅读当代作品时，我们不会有时空的隔阂，因此我们除了要厘清作者心中的过滤器之外，也要弄清楚自己的想法才行。 其次，你要问作者是否使用了什么特殊的语言？在阅读杂志或报纸时，这个问题尤其重要。阅读所有当代历史书的时候也用得上这个问题。特定的字眼会激起我们特定的反应，却不会对一个世纪以后的人发生作用。譬如“共产主义”或“共产党”就是一个例子。我们应该能掌握相关的反应，或至少知道何时会产生这样的反应。 最后，你要考虑五个间题中的最后一个问题，这也可能是最难回答的问题。你所阅读的这位报导作者真的知道事实吗？是否知道被报导的人物私下的思想与决定？他有足够的知识以写出一篇公平客观的报导吗？ 换句话说，我们所强调的是：我们要注意的，不光是一个记者可能会有的偏差。我们最近听到许多“新闻管理”(management of thenews)这样的话题。这样的观念不只对我们这些大众来说非常重要，对那些“知道内情”的记者来说更重要。但是他们未必清楚这一点。一个记者尽管可能抱持着最大的善意，一心想提供读者真实的资料，在一些秘密的行动或协议上仍然可能“知识不足”。他自己可能知道这一点，也可能不知道。当然，如果是后者，对读者来说就非常危险了。 你会注意到，这里所提的五个问题，其实跟我们说过阅读论说性作品时要提出的问题大同小异。譬如知道作者的特殊用语，就跟与作者达成共识是一样的。对身为现代读者的我们来说，当前事件的著作或与当代有关的作品传达的是特殊的问题，因此我们要用不同的方法来提出这些疑问。 也许，就阅读这类书而言，整理一堆“规则”还比不上归纳为一句警告。这个警告就是：读者要擦亮眼睛（Caveat lector）！在阅读亚里士多德、但丁或莎士比亚的书时，读者用不着担这种心。而写作当代事件的作者却可能（虽然不见得一定）在希望你用某一种方式了解这件事的过程中，有他自己的利益考虑。就算他不这么想，他的消息来源也会这么想。你要搞清楚他们的利益考虑，阅读任何东西都要小心翼翼。 ※ 关于文摘的注意事项 我们谈过在阅读任何一种作品时，都有一种基本的区别—为了获得资讯而阅读，还是为了理解而阅读。其实，作这种区别还有另一种后续作用。那就是，有时候我们必须阅读一些有关理解的资讯—换言之，找出其他人是如何诠释事实的。让我们试着说明如下。 我们阅读报纸、杂志，甚至广告，主要都是为了获得资讯。这些资料的量太大了，今天已没有人有时间去阅读所有的资讯，顶多阅读一小部分而己。在这类阅读领域中，大众的需要激发了许多优秀的新事业的出现。譬如像《时代》(Time)或《新闻周刊)) (Newsweek)，这种新闻杂志，对大多数人来说就有难以言喻的功能，因为它们能代替我们阅读新闻，还浓缩成包含最基本要素的资讯。这些杂志新闻写作者基本上都是读者。他们阅读新闻的方法，则已经远远超越一般读者的能力。 对《读者文摘》(Readers Digest)这类出版品来说，也是同样的情况。这样的杂志声称要给读者一种浓缩的形式，让我们将注意力由一般杂志转移到一册塞满资讯的小本杂志上。当然，最好的文章，就像最好的书一样，是不可能经过浓缩而没有遗珠之憾的。譬如像蒙田的散文如果出现在现代的期刊上，变成一篇精华摘要，是绝对没法满足我们的。总之，在这样的情况下，浓缩的惟一功能就是激励我们去阅读原著。至于一般的作品，浓缩是可行的，而且通常要比原著还好。因为一般的文字主要都是与资讯有关的。要编纂《读者文摘》或同类期刊的技巧，最重要的就是阅读的技巧，然后是写作要清晰简单。我们没几个人拥有类似的技巧—就算有时间的话—它为做了我们自己该做的事，将核心的资讯分解开来，然后以比较少的文字传达出主题。 毕竟，最后我们还是得阅读这些经过摘要的新闻与资讯的期刊。如果我们希望获得资讯，不论摘要已经做得多好，我们还是无法避免阅读这件事。在所有分析的最后一步，也就是阅读摘要这件事情，与杂志编辑以紧凑的方式浓缩原文的工作是一样的。他们已经替我们分担了一些阅读的工作，但不可能完全取代或解决阅读的问题。因此，只有当我们尽心阅读这些摘要，就像他们在之前的尽心阅读以帮助我们作摘要一样，他们的功能对我们才会真正有帮助。 这其中同时涉及为了增进理解而阅读，以及为了获得资讯而阅读这两件事。显然，越是浓缩过的摘要，筛选得越厉害。如果一千页的作品摘成九百页，这样的问题不大。如果一千页的文字浓缩成十页或甚至一页，那么到底留下来的是些什么东西就是个大向题了。内容被浓缩得越多，我们对浓缩者的特质就更要有所了解。我们在前面所提出的“警告”在这里的作用就更大了。毕竟，在经过专业浓缩过的句子中，读者更要能读出言外之意才行。你没法找回原文，看看是删去了哪些，你必须要从浓缩过的文字中自己去判定。因此，阅读文摘，有时是最困难又自我要求最多的一种阅读方式。