Occasionally, we receive numerous messages on our smart devices informing us that a library or magazine has made some or all its texts available electronically for free. Often, these are accompanied by invitations to read and acquire useful knowledge and enlightening thoughts. These messages may come from genuine readers or self-proclaimed readers who send a large number of messages without considering whether the “free” sources or texts are suitable for the intended recipients. Their primary concern seems to be forwarding “serious” content related to books and reading, engaging in a process akin to “message laundering.” My focus here is not on the senders, but on the readers aspiring to become better readers in the future. This text is for them, and its title itself may be revealing enough to render it unnecessary, perhaps even dissuading further elaboration. I still want to clarify a few additional matters that could be useful or serve to validate the mentioned result (as indicated in the title), which some may perceive as incorrect, and they have every right to do so. They may argue that renowned figures like Al-Jahiz, Al-Tawhidi, Al-Aqqad, Badawi, Kanafani, Borges, and countless others were avid readers. True, they were voracious readers, but their approach was far from indiscriminate. They did not consume any material that came their way. They differed, for instance, from the “bookseller” type of reader who reads whatever comes his way, wasting time, accumulating information, and possibly extinguishing his intellectual curiosity. Have you ever heard of many such individuals becoming prominent figures in writing and thought? This highlights a need to clarify various aspects related to the conclusion stated in the title.
Some of the messages we receive contain trustworthy sources and valuable texts, such as the Harvard Business Review, the MIT Sloan Management Review in Arabic, books available on Amazon, or those found in the Library of Alexandria, and any books or reference materials gifted to you by a friend or colleague, or made accessible to you through other means. I once spent over six hours combing through various sources sent to me by a friend, extracting around 100 texts and organizing them in my research folders. So why do I advocate for reading not just what is available to you, but what you are available for? In my past experiences, I did not simply read whatever was accessible to me. I held the belief that individuals who read solely based on availability (rather than the other way around) would fall into different ineffective reading categories. Through years of observing reading behavior across diverse segments of Arab society, I’ve identified three main categories of ineffective readers. These preliminary findings are based on my quiet, cumulative, and “discretionary” observations.
- The 1st category: Dormant/transient readers
Dormant readers are individuals who remain inactive in their reading for extended periods, only awakening when they come across messages about free books or the availability of specific texts. These readers not only lack attentiveness but also exhibit a transient nature. This lack of vision manifests in the absence of scientific/intellectual projects, writing endeavors, or even broader life goals that necessitate a foundation of knowledge and experience. Content with consuming scattered fragments of information, they lack coherent reading practice. There are three notable characteristics that define their reading habits.
- Shallowness in quality and scarcity in quantity.
- Randomness and irregularity.
- Fleetingness.
Within this category of readers, various degrees exist, with some surpassing others, even if only on a psychological level. Some people in this category engage in psychological deception as they persistently strive to construct a “reading identity.” This identity seeks validation in existence, often through the notion of “I read bits and pieces, therefore I am a reader.” The unfortunate ultimate outcome of their reading endeavors often leads them to join the ranks of argumentative debaters, wielding incomplete methodologies and fragmented facts. They are more akin to commoners than true readers, but their lack of true substance renders them far less valuable than being merely commoners.
- The 2nd category: Lost/non-systematic readers
This category includes readers who engage in significant reading in terms of quantity and time, often demonstrating seriousness in their approach. Some of them have scientific, intellectual, or writing projects, or even (relatively) ambitious life projects, indicating that they possess a vision, and in some cases, a commendable one too. However, they suffer from a lack of methodological approach to their reading. The absence of a proper methodology hinders their ability to determine the fields they should focus on, the appropriate stages of reading, the suitable reading materials, and other frameworks associated with effective reading practices. Although their vision allows them to achieve a degree of sorting among the readily available texts, this sorting lacks depth, leading to three key flaws in their reading:
- Confusion and disorganization.
- Moodiness.
- Contextual limitation.
The third characteristic suggests that their reading is influenced by the societal context. This reading is shaped by their interests and the cognitive and analytical models they adhere to. For example, one might read an economic textbook in the morning. But then in the evening, without finishing the first book, they might pick up a “free” novel instead. This novel may come with an endorsement or recommendation from either a known or unknown reader, such as on social media. Even though the recommendation may come from an unknown source, they would still deem the reading endorsement as reliable and worthwhile. This tendency reflects their attempt to build a reading identity through the justification: “I read voraciously; therefore, I am a reader.” The reading cultivation of these individuals is varied, reflecting the diversity of their sub-categories and behaviors. Some of them mistakenly believe that they have become experts or authorities on specific subjects, while in reality, their cumulative reading and systematic knowledge collection are often insignificant.
- The 3rd category: Disorderly/broken readers
These readers possess both a vision and a method, and they may be considered good or reasonable readers. However, their major downfall lies in the absence of a well-defined plan that effectively guides them towards achieving their vision through their chosen methodology. The reading activity of readers in this category can be characterized by three key flaws:
- Fragmentation.
- Incompleteness.
- Faustian-ness.
The third characteristic indicates that, despite these readers’ relatively good ability to sort through available free texts, this group often falls short in their actual reading, due to a common illusion that affects many of them. This pervasive “Faustian” tendency leads them to mistakenly believe that they can grasp a wide range of knowledge across multiple fields or that they are obligated to know every piece of information, statistic, date, or event. This ultimately leads them to embody the prophetic description of being “unable, neither to traverse any land nor to retain any conveyance.” Their reading identity is shaped by the flawed belief: “I diversify my reading extensively, therefore I am a good reader.”
Disorderly readers exhibit a knack for initiating various endeavors or projects, but they often struggle to bring them to completion. This lack of follow-through often manifests in their inability to complete written works or major life goals requiring sustained effort. It is not uncommon to come across individuals within this group who, despite investing considerable effort into reading, fail to produce output that matches their intellectual or creative potential. This can leave them feeling bitter and frustrated and may lead them to attribute their perceived failure to societal disapproval. In a psychological escape known as “external locus of control,” they may attribute this failure to societal forces rather than taking responsibility for their own shortcomings, while still taking credit for their successes.
- Serious reading: A defiant stand against the flood of ignorance that threatens to engulf us
Having briefly explored these categories of readers, we return to the crucial point: not just any fleeting or freely available text should be offered to our minds. Instead, we must strive to make desired texts accessible to eager minds. This is because a text only truly comes alive within the spirit of a reader. We, then, rely on the “prior ability” of the reader, which exists before encountering a specific text. This prior ability encompassing the reader’s vision, method, and plan, exists before the available text, not in an absolute sense, but in a relative one. By “relative,” I do not mean the reader exists independently of a specific text beforehand. It’s entirely possible for the text to exist before the reader both chronologically and physically. Rather, the reader’s priority lies in the possession of an “intellectual psychological repertoire.” This repertoire precedes the reader’s engagement with the text. It is this repertoire that equips us with colored glasses, with concave and convex lenses, enabling us to discern and select texts that align with our own existence rather than the text’s inherent qualities.
To build a bright future for ourselves, our societies, and humanity as a whole, there’s no substitute for good reading, both in quality and quantity. Within our minds lie vast, unexplored chambers filled with treasures, and only thoughtful reading can illuminate the path to these riches. We reside within tightly sealed boxes that nothing can unlock except for the persistent efforts of cumulative, critical reading. Serious reading is a defiant cry against the flood that threatens to drown us in ignorance and superficiality, including the insidious myth of “read whatever is available to you.”
T1637
