Ask HN: Are a lot of books just useless? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Are a lot of books just useless?

I'm trying to get into reading, but I keep running into an issue where a lot of these books feel like fluff. Like, why are there so many books around 250 pages? Surely, these authors are trying to hit a page count first, and then providing information second. It just feels disingenuous, which kills my vibe while reading the book.

There are some books I've read where it feels like every page is a gold mine of information. Is this whole fluff-to-information predicament a common thing in reading? What tools/metrics are there to help find meaningful books? For example, is it viable to only read books greater than 4.5 stars on Goodreads? Or is meticulously researching for good books just a matter of life in the book-reading hobby?

Maybe every book is valuable, and it's just a skill to read, to extract the meaningful information effectively. But honestly, as with everything in life, it's probably a mix of everything. Researching and reading skills will probably make the hobby more enjoyable. But I mean, since it's a hobby, I have the right to try to avoid books I would consider 'useless'.

View on HN

I'm going to assume you're talking about nonfiction books, because this is highly subjective for novels/fiction.

Most books are terrible, and even most "good" books have large swaths of filler content. Very few books are packed with useful content from front to back cover.

I think this is largely due to pressures from publishers and the way books are traditionally published and sold.

A 50 page book that is jam-packed with goodies and has no filler won't sell nearly as well as a 300 page book that seems to be full of stuff from an expert in the field. A 300 page book looks a lot better on a shelf than a 50 page pamphlet. Most of us know in our brains that quality > quantity, but our hearts often tell us the opposite.

Some fixes already exist: Online content, blogs, developer docs, and self-published books.

Practically, I would say don't worry about skimming books or parts of books if they seem like they are mostly fluff or overly repetitive. Because they probably are.

A surprising number of non-fiction books these days are unbearable to read since I find the authors often use them as a thinly disguised autobiography masquerading as a book about a specific topic. I recently read an astrophysics book that I was excited to read based on the actual astrophysics topic, but it really was a book about the author's adventures and struggles through grad school and postgrad doing research in the topic of the book. I did not want to read about their "journey" - I didn't care before I started, and I cared even less after reading it. I find this leads to books feeling very fluffy and lacking the subject-matter depth that I wish for.

This isn't just a problem with non-fiction books. I find more often than not in long form journalism lately the writers seem to not be able to resist becoming characters in their own writing. I could have sworn at one point it was considered bad journalistic form to become part of the story versus reporting it. Apparently those days are gone.

> A surprising number of non-fiction books these days are unbearable to read since I find the authors often use them as a thinly disguised autobiography masquerading as a book about a specific topic.

I encountered this phenomenon recently with "Wired for Love" by neuroscientist Stephanie Cacioppo.

When I get a recommendation from an actual human being I know and trust, I typically enjoy it, but when it’s a book that influencers say “changed their life” or gets good reviews from NYT, or Goodreads, etc, I enjoy it much less so.

There’s nothing wrong with not being into the same books everyone else pretended to read. A good book should feel like entertainment or an interesting diversion, not a chore to slog through. There are some classics (like Dickens) that I just can’t get into, and I’m OK with that.

Stephen King describes his books as the literary equivalent of a “Big Mac and Fries” and you know what? Sometimes a Big Mac is what sounds good for lunch.

One genre I particularly like is non-fiction about interesting events, like “Endurance” about Shackleton’s failed voyage to the South Pole. It’s a great book and I learned more about leadership from it than all the other self-help books combined.

Yes, most books are crap. But Sturgeon's Law is a thing, so that should not be surprising. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law

It took me years to get past the first 100 pages of both Dune and Stars in my Pocket like Grains of Sand but once I did, both turned out to be excellent. The only reason I kept trying is that I'd heard they were both good and I couldn't figure out what I was missing until I found it.

IME, the only way to know if you're likely to enjoy a book is if it's recommended by someone who knows your taste very well. Or if you have a favorite author. Other than that, it's a crapshoot. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you waste a few hours.

One of the nice things about brick & mortar bookstores and libraries is being able to browse around until you find something good.

> It took me years to get past the first 100 pages of both Dune

Oof.

I was easier for me, because I was like 12-14y/o at the time. Honestly, I don't remember a shit about it, except what it was good at times. I wouldn't mind to try it again (and not an extremely poor translation now) but... I know it would be quite tedious and I know what I wouldn't make it. Hell, I didn't finished books what very relevant for my interests for years now.

Yes, most books are useless.

> What tools/metrics are there to help find meaningful books?

Okay, first I never read a book that is less than 10 years old. Why? Because 10 years is roughly the time needed for a book to withstand the wheel of time. 100 years, as noted in other comments as well, is even better. If old books are still read, they are probably good books. But I cannot tell you the best books of last year. The only thing I can do, is tell you what the most popular books of last year were. But popular books are not the same as best books.

Secondly, I only read books I'm willing to read multiple times. Reading a book more than once is a great experience. Usually, I get more out of the second or third read than from the first read. If, after reading a couple of pages of a book, I realize I will not want to re-read the book, I quit reading it.

How do you know if you're willing to read a book multiple times before, you know, getting acquainted with it by reading it?

Do you have a 100% accurate method to ensure you never ever start reading something not-awesome?

Most of my life, I've been a completionist and would power through any book I started reading. Same for tv series, etc.

But then I found that forgiving myself for quitting had some really good consequences and few bad ones. So if a book/show isn't cutting it, I am mindful of the sunk costs fallacy and get onto something better. I've been happier.

I think there is only one 100% accurate method to ensure you never start reading a non-awesome book, and that's by never read any book at all.

Instead, admit quickly that you made a mistake and stop reading a book if it turns out to be not-awesome after a couple of pages.

As someone that wrote a $19, 47 page book, it's because you get tons of criticism that you can get a 300 hour course for $9, what possible value could you provide in 47 pages

A good place to start is this randomizer for books with Wikipedia entries: https://www.locserendipity.com/Books.html

Random exposure to books might help you find something that is of greater interest to you that you would read otherwise. I found, for example, this book, which I found interesting by this method: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Metamorphosis_of_Prime_I...

Absolutely.

Which is why you should not feel bad about abandoning a bad book, life is short, not everything is worth reading (or not everything is going to be interesting to you), so spend more time on the good ones, or on the ones you enjoy.

I'm not a huge reader so I finish few, but occasionally I come across a gem and relish it, re-reading whole chapters, trying to absorb as much as possible. As others have pointed out, even the good ones contain less interesting sections, but sometimes this is more intrinsic to the subject, sort of like the vegetables that might not be as palatable but you should eat in order to maximise your absorption of the nutrients... Distinguishing this from books of generally low value low quality is not always quick, but you gain an instinct and will know when to ditch it.

My hunt for books is completely random and infrequent, and I think I could personally do a lot better here, by going after the classics, books that stood the test of time..

You are right, a lot of books are redundant. The gems are becoming rarer and rarer the more you read. You get the feeling that whatever unique message a writer has, if he has one, is buried beneath a ton of words.

You will also notice that the books you read become increasingly more arcane to the point where you question your own sanity. It's almost like porn, the more you watch, the more extreme the content gets. I think this is one of the main reasons for the prevalence of occult stuff over the ages.

Books are a medium that has been elevated by pseudo-intellectualism into a divinity of sorts. They're as good as what's written in them and like most human output, most are garbage. Why should it be any different? Is most of TV that good? Most magazines? Most TikTok? Most music? Conversation?

What are you trying to read and why? From your description it sounds like you're reading to learn, which is fine but likely sub-optimal. Or are you reading to learn how to read?

Every medium has creation and consumption costs, and it affects their average quality. Books have a high creation cost: both in time and money, relative to electronic mediums. They also have a high consumption cost, as you cant read a book in a few seconds like you can watch shortform content. These factors select for quality.

You could say the same for TV or film and most of it is still garbage.

True, but their cost is still relatively cheaper considering the profit you can make from them is more than from books. Part of this is also because they are easier to replicate.

The best way is finding a community and/or individuals you trust and getting their opinion. By community, I mean something much smaller than "HackerNews" or a subreddit.

most nonfiction books are either:

- padded blogposts/tweets to appear thicker/more valuable - rampantly wrong pseudoscience and opinion pieces that trigger emotions instead of brains - once useful advice that is now horribly outdated - if accurate, then too dry to become actually popular

and then there is fiction, which is at least honest about being fiction, but constrained by the authors imagination as well as the target reading groups average expectations. Thats why most SciFi stuff is some kind of stupid dystopia to provoke fears about the future instead of guidance towards a good path like solarpunk.

Welcome to the majority of business/productivity/self-help literature.

I know from experience never to pick up a Cal Newport book again. 50 pages of well-written, cogent prose surrounded by 300 pages of repetition.

Same with James Clear's Atomic Habits. I was on his newsletter list for about a year prior to the book, and I can tell you there is almost nothing new in there. But that's really a testament to the quality of the newsletter. Once the book came out however, every email after that was an ad for the book. Unsubbed!

I have learned to stay away from popular science and nonfiction writing. Almost every single such book could be less than 50 pages, but they are artificially extended. There are a few good ones, but they are rare and require great humility and honesty from the author.

I enjoy finding special nonfiction books that present the essence of a subject in an expedient way, but these are hard to find and they require a great focus from the author to stick to a specific topic or subtopic of huge fields.

Novels are different.

the trick is to find the good ones. i highly recommend mary roach (current) and lewis thomas (old) for excellent popular science writing.

Aside from individual instances of good popular science writing, my favorite series is the Scientific American Library series. It's probably the best collection of popular but real science writing.

https://www.thriftbooks.com/series/scientific-american-libra...

As a recovering reader, I'm partial to Albert Einstein:

“Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking.”

https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/albert-einsteins-thoughts-on...

Most acclaimed or popular books are mixed. The trick is to vary the speed and depth of your reading. Read slow and enjoy the most informative parts. Skim the boring sections or chapters. A good book gives you a sense of awe and wonder that makes you look up from the page and think about what you just read. You can use that as a guide post as to whether it’s worth finishing a book. Always read a sample before buying.

I think you are focusing too much on the negative side of a book you find useless. There is another framing that is more useful and helps to suggest answers to your other questions. One way to think of it to kind of get an intuition for why things tend to be long is to imagine you are going to have someone be your personal trainer for a month. However, they must interview for the job. One interview question you could ask is do ten push ups. That is like writing a short book. The other is run a marathon. That is like writing a long book. What sort of implications come from that? You start getting a lot of filtering criteria and you start to realize that the requested length actually makes the filtering of fit from non-fit much easier. Even better, in cases where you get it wrong, the mere fact that they had to put in enough effort to fake worthiness as the fitness coach required a level of fitness that made them a little more qualified for the task then they otherwise would have been.

Textbooks used by serious institutions will be a stronger usefulness heuristic than Goodread stars if you aren't looking for fluff, but are looking for meaningful text. They passed the interview in a literal sense. Particularly ones that are used for years.

I have a huge collection of quotes I gathered from Facebook, Tumblr, Reddit, and Twitter which are from classic self-help books and I prefer them over memorizing a whole book. You can sometimes distill the essence of what was said in a book into a small morsel/quote. The stoic ones are my favorite. They were the kings of one-liners.

On the other hand, you may as well read the Enchiridion cover to cover, since it's basically formulated as a bunch of short tips and one liners anyway.

Absolutely yes - a lot of nonfiction books that are intended to be a deep dive into a particular topic written by experts are like this, and I think it's clearly because they need to hit a page count as you've suggested.

I just finished a book called Arbitrary Lines, about land zoning in the US. I was looking for a really deep dive into the history of zoning and how it ended up in its current state, or perhaps comparative analysis of different zoning policies. In reality, the book was maybe 25% technical/historical information about zoning and 75% the author going off about how zoning is unfair and leads to inequality. That's all fine, but I was picking up the book because I already have a clear understanding that zoning is the source of problems and wanted to understand how we got to where we are (and maybe learn about what the expected benefits of the existing zoning rules are that got them implemented, which the author didn't even pretend to be interested in because he's totally anti-zoning).

In any case, this is all to say that I strong recommend two things. First, skim! You don't actually have to read the whole book. I'm currently reading a book called Limitless, which is about the Fed's actions during the early days of the pandemic. It started with some history of the Fed, which makes sense in context, but I've already read about the history of the Fed, so I just read initial paragraphs of chapters and initial sentences of paragraphs to make sure I wasn't missing anything important by skipping it. Second, be willing to put down books. It took me a while to be okay with this, but at the end of the day you only have so much reading time in your life, and there's no shame in setting down a book that's disappointing and moving on to something else.

In terms of finding books, if you're looking for this kind of nonfiction, I like recommendations from experts. I really like Bill Gates' reading list. NPR Best Books (https://apps.npr.org/best-books) as well.

I've been exploring book summary services as a means to narrow down my reading choices. Once I have decided to read a book, I find it helpful to keep the summary on hand to improve my comprehension and keep track of the book's main ideas.

Sure. Lots of books are ten pages of real content forced into a 250-page package.

Likewise, lots of articles (both printed and online) are three paragraphs of real content forced into a four-page package.

And plenty of blog posts are one-sentence ideas spread out amongst five paragraphs.

As for finding good books, for me, one helpful clue is the author. If I like one book from an author, I very likely (though not certainly) will like another. Of course, sticking with one particular author can be very limiting. Another clue is the publisher; having found some books that I like all from one publisher, then that is encouraging to peruse more books from the same publisher.

And likewise, finding books that are poorly written and low on content from a publisher seems like a good warning to avoid getting more of their books.

> I have the right to try to avoid books I would consider 'useless'.

Yes! Of course you have the right to choose what you are reading. Don't forget about it.

> What tools/metrics are there to help find meaningful books?

Do you really want a metric on a highly subjective matter? Does a bad rating on Goodreads means what the book is bad? Does that that mean what you wouldn't enjoy it if it relevant for your interests?

> it's probably a mix of everything.

Of course.

Try this[0] (or find a text copy, it's available on archive.org too), it's short and...

[0] https://archive.org/details/ExhalationByTedChiang

An old profesor of mine who used to review computer science books as a side gig told me he never bothered to read them, all he needed to do was check the contents page to see if they were good or not. I've been applying that method for figuring out whether a non fiction book is good or not and it works like a charm.if the contents are in a weird order or there isn't the right amount of specificity in the contents its prob not good. Also don't commit to reading any big non fiction books without checking Wikipedia and doing some 30 min research on the topic first. Easier to spot the bs that way

After having read dozens of books for college I feel that book for "retail" have so little information that I just don't bother anymore.

I think an important thing is to understand why you're reading. What are you wanting to get out of it? That will inform the sorts of books that are of value to you and the sorts that aren't.

One person's indispensable book can be, and often is, another person's complete waste of time. It depends as much on the reader as on the book.

Books are frequently useless. I only buy used (thrift books, local book stores) or get them from the library. If I dont have a compelling reason to finish it after about 20-50pages, I just re-sell/give away/throw it in the nearest gutter.

metrics don't work very well for this. find a good independent bookstore who will recommend you books based on what you like. they know the good stuff. find the writers you like and pay attention to what they recommend.

for the rest of the books, my life hack is to watch/listen to summaries about books, or find videos or interviews where the writer talks about the book. so many non-fiction books should be a blog post. don't be afraid to skim.

This is like everything else in life - people, education, work places etc..

Having said that, books with rating > 4.7 (of 5) on amazon are generally v.good.

Correct. 19th century classics became so only because a good chunk of the populace was still illiterate, and not only could Austen, Balzac, Tolstoy, etc., write, they could write a thousand pages! So glibness was mistook for wisdom.

I read a ton only because today's movies and tv are so bad, and because I can go as fast as I want. I skim because I'm only gonna remember 10%.

> Glibness was mistook for wisdom.

You listed three realist authors. This is like complaining because you expected your apple to taste like an orange.

If you are an author of a book on a subject, even if it's not great, your resume gains a lot of value.

Also, YMMV, but for me, repetition in books causes to remember much more, shape and use the knowledge. Unlike a random blog post from HN ;)

Pirate Bay is the best literary critic, quote Palahniuk: "Nobody steals a bad book".

It has happened that I have paid for the stolen book and bought more books from the author because of free sample at Pirate Bay.

I love that idea

SOunds like you're talking about nonfiction books and indeed, like most things, those are mostly crap.

As far as fiction goes the same is true but there's one weird trick I use: by and large I only read books by dead authors. The volume of the world's books is enormous, and again, most is crap. But if someone has died (no more book publicity tours!) and their book is still in print or readily available, there's a better chance that it's worth reading.

There's more to it than that of course; naïvely following this rule would suggest reading (ugh) Ayn Rand. But there's a big variety of good stuff still in print or easily findable at a used book store.

The best nonfiction books are specialized textbooks. They're not fun to read, but that's where all of the valuable information is.

You have just encountered Sturgeon's Law. 90% of everything is crap.

Is every podcast full of value, with no fluff? Is every music album? Is every video? No. Why should books be any different?

There are book that are astounding things packed full of revelations. There are books that are the equivalent of a YouTube video that pads a 3s answer to the question posed by its title out to 10min because that's where you start getting better monetization.

There are also books that mostly exist to entertain you with a story. Some of these are great, full of compelling characters and cool ideas. Some of them are not. Some of them have high ambitions of saying something deep about life via a parable. Some of them just want to give you a fun time. Some succeed at whichever of those aims they have. Some don't.

There are books that are introductions to their field. There are books that are aimed exclusively at experts in them. This includes works of fiction - it's a fabulous experience to read a story you're well-versed in, by an author who expects that none of the basic concepts have to be explained to you, and just goes full speed ahead into their crazy takes on them.

Some subjects are honestly not that deep and everything that needs to be said about them can be done in a few chapters. And yet people keep on writing books about the same thing, saying the same ideas in slightly different ways, with a handful of anecdotes showing the ideas in action and other ways to pad it out into something worth paying the basic cost for putting the text through whatever physical or electronic supply chain ends with it in your hands, with a profit for everyone in that supply chain. Sometimes one of these books actually has a new take on the subject. Usually it doesn't.

Find reviewers you trust. If a friend recommends something, check it out; if you think it's garbage after reading it then now you have something to talk about your friend with. Be polite in your takedown of it unless you have shared books with this friend and argued about them a lot in the past. If an author you like recommends something, check it out. Bookstores can provide a curated experience of physical books that you can write snarky comments in the margins of; some bookstores specialize in certain topics, some don't; many will have cards here and there on the shelves with recommendations from the staff. And take chances. If you see a book recommended several times in different context, check it out. If you stumble upon something in the store that looks exciting, grab it. Especially if it's used and cheap. If you find a burning need for that expensive small-press scholarly work on the various jackal divinities of ancient Egypt[1] arises in you the moment you learn of its existence then get it. Especially if most of its absurd price appears in your life while you're still dithering about it. Find communities where people ask for pirated copies of obscure books - sometimes one sounds cool enough to buy for yourself.

Usually a good rule of thumb for fiction is to give it to about page 100. You can quit earlier if you really hate it, life's too short to read bad books, but if a story hasn't grabbed you by that point it never will. Especially beware of any multi-book series where its fans tell you it gets good around book 3-5.

Avoid bestsellers. Except when you don't.

You can always put a book down. Maybe you'll come back to it. Maybe you never will. Maybe you'll put it down so hard that it bounces off the wall and into the trash can. Books are not sacred, books are not all amazing.

1: https://www.darengo.co.uk/product/jackal-divinities-1/ - it's OOP now and I'm definitely glad to have this artifact on my shelves

The Miracle Morning could have been written in half a page.

It depends very much what you're trying to read.

Start with the 90 day Harvard classics https://www.myharvardclassics.com/categories/20120622

And also check out Penguins Great Idea series https://www.penguin.co.uk/series/PEN02/penguin-great-ideas

If a book was read 100 years ago and is still being read today then it's worth a read. Most books written a few hundred years ago are just as relevant (if not more so) today.

On the other hand, many books from the past are dreadful with respect to readability, pacing, period context stuff and more... Generally the evolution the feedback loop between readers, writers and editors has generated over the last 100 years.

Most books from the past were dreadful but there are a couple selection mechanisms at play. For one, we only promote the best ones. The further back it goes the more picky we get. Second, it was a lot harder to publish in the past, so those who did it had more reason to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com