It is perfectly
understandable that academics preparing for their doctorates will have to
absorb the important information from hundreds of books without actually taking
the lengthy amount of time read the books—a process Douglas Hunter referred to
as book breaking—but as someone who loves reading, I find it a bit tragic.
Knowing that academics began writing books the way academics will read it, in a
way pre-book breaking it for readers, makes it even more tragic to me, as their
books are not actually written to be read. I feel that it is a waste to write a
book that is not meant to be read, and it defeats the purpose of writing a book.
Like Hunter, I think that the best books employ narrative, creating a
compelling read, and that, at the very least, academics should try to write a
book that busy students will want to return to when they have more time. I do
wonder if book breaking is worth it, in the long run, or if it would be better if
doctorate students were given the time to completely read required readings. Hunter
commented that he had so much required reading that for seven years he rarely
read anything recreationally, which “very nearly killed [his] love of reading.”
Though obviously I am not in a doctorate program, nor do I know anyone in a
doctorate program, I have met people who claim that required readings completely
ruined their love for reading, which I think is another tragedy. Obviously not
everyone enjoys reading, and there is just too much to read in doctorate
programs to justify reading each and every one of them cover-to-cover, but I
just feel like it is unfortunate that academics cannot take the time to fully
read books, even if they do grasp the general thoughts and concepts. I did find
it interesting, though, to learn a little about how the strategy works and how
it could potentially benefit us as students in the future.