Agatha Christie is one of my favourite authors, and 'Death on the Nile' is one of my favourite books of hers! :) I'm glad you like it. Some of my other favourites are 'The Murder of Roger Ackroyd', 'Murder in Mesopotamia' and 'Murder at the Vicarage' (this one is a Miss Marple book). Definitely recommend you read any book written by her though :)

ABC murders is still my favorite

Start at the beginning

It’s not just the period. If you read other Golden Age mysteries, she stands out as particularly racist and classist.

In her 20s books, she uses the n word and about half a dozen variations on anti-semitism. Not to mention the classism, or the fact that adoptive parents and children are almost invariably evil or insane. She’s pretty awful—and worse than a lot of her contemporaries were, in fact. But her books are so damned skillfully written that I still love them. I just don’t like HER much.

We read ATTWN in grade 9 and it still haunts me, I loved it so much. That’s when I fell I love with mystery

And then there was none and Murder on the Orient Express are the 2 greatest pieces of crime fiction ever written.. followed closely by the ABC murders...

You wrote a lot for someone who couldn’t have possibly read the article.

And, of course, a lot of monsters were voracious readers. Stalin was particularly famous for his library and throughput.

That said, the three people in question weren't exactly proclaiming other avenues of high-quality thought, but we both know how differently people react to anything openly castigating the young women who take pride in consuming social media or YA instead of literary or analytical works.

Depends on the book.

Reference books: I read what I want, when I want. That's the point.

Textbooks: Chapter by chapter. First, I skim the section headings of the chapter, to get a sense of what the chapter is about and how it's developing the ideas and concepts. Then I skim again, but with more attention to the sidenotes, figures, and other supplementary material. Then I go back and skim each paragraph. This is where I start making notes, relating what jumps out at me in each paragraph to the themes established by my previous skims. Then, I go back and read some or all of the chapter paragraphs in detail. Finally, if the book includes quizzes or study prompts, I read those, compare them against my notes, and decide if I need to re-read the chapter to pick up something I may have missed.

Histories other than textbooks (biographies, popular histories, etc.): I read them just like fiction. Beginning to end, as a linear narrative.

During my late teens and early twenties, I was easily a bigger fan of Agatha Christie's works than any of my so-called peers who also fancied themselves as readers-for-pleasure (very different from the readers-for-academia, I might add.)

Death On The Nile was a book I always refrained from reading because I had already seen the 1978 film adaptation (incredible cast including Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirot) and the film had always been satisfying enough for me. I really ought to just pick up that damn book already. I think it's been long enough. Evil Under The Sun falls into that same category for me, for the same reasons. I ought to read that too.

And Then There Were None remains my favorite of her books, and I also greatly enjoyed Cards On The Table. Highly recommended.

Basically, he's writing how books are the only worthwhile form of the humanities in a respected journal of thought with a strong history of literary, philosophical, and analytical output.

The second part is that he seems oddly hostile toward the idea that altruism should be judged by what it does for the world, which may be because it very much discounts the benefit of a monastic lifestyle of self-sacrifice, which is how academics often see themselves.

Being fair, that was only the US title.

This is a complex topic, reading extends beyond books. And even then a lot of great people achieved and achieve immeasurable things without reading a whole lot.

I just read And Then Were None as my first Christie book and I was absolutely blown away by it. Cannot recommend enough. I’ll be tackling Poirot novels next but wanted to start with a standalone.

More noting an interesting implication in the premise and an oddly vitriolic aside about something basically everyone else would say is harmless at worst.

I don't have a firm recommendation. I just think the Roger Ackroyd book and Poirot's Last Case in particular, were written after she had amassed a following who were very familiar with her books, and she had honed her craft. So personally I would go roughly in chronological order even though each book is independent with no overarching story line.

Folks with learning disabilities, especially folks in environments where there's a lot of shame associated with "different," get really good at masking symptoms & struggles.

It's way easier when you're younger (elementary/grammar school age; not sure what the term would be in your country) but as the work gets more difficult, your old coping skills and masking techniques start to fall apart.

You're not stupid; your brain just works differently.

Getting diagnosed really should help you figure out how to work with the way your brain works; no shame, just support.

I did notice a few holes or cheesy moments in this book, but overall enjoyed reading it.

I took this moment as Jean-Felix trying to isolate Alicia and keep her reliant on him as a support system. I didn't think he new Gabriel was cheating or anything at this point.

LoL it certainly led to a fun film called THE CONDEMNED starring Stone Cold Steve Austin and Vinnie Jones.

It depends on the type of nonfic I'm reading; I don't often take notes, but sometimes I'll snap photos of paragraphs that strike me as especially relevant - I did this several times while reading books about the 1918 Influenza pandemic (or I will annotate them on a re-read if it's a purchased/personal copy, like my Mary Roach books) - and text or share them with friends on social media.

For me, the best way to remember what I've read is to talk (or type!) about it with other people, either folks who've read the same book or friends I'm trying to convince to read it, because I connect my excitement about something cool/interesting/maddening I learnt from the book to that conversation.

Oh, and I read some nonfic at a much slower rate than I read fiction, so it may take me months-and-months to finish a "heavy" subject with a lot of technical language but I'll blow through a 400pp novel in like a day. I don't worry; I don't judge.

Many consider this to be a proto-slasher story.

It must be too late cause I'm not making head, nor tail, of anything you wrote...

So you posted a link to an article about people who don't like to read books, and then took the time out of your day to take a shit all over the article's writer and his career choice to be a writer because you disagree with one of his points? Fascinating. *slow clap*

I will say that it's deeply ironic for this argument that books are the reading format of record taking the form of an essay in The Atlantic Monthly, although to say that would be an admission that I should probably subscribe to Ploughshares like I've been planning to for several years (they had just finished selling a bundle with several other journals I'm interested in when I last checked and haven't had another these last few years).

There's also remarkable vitriol for effective altruism buried in the later part of the essay, which I somewhat suspect is due to his identifying his low-paid career providing privileged young adults with lessons in recreation as his main form of altruism.