Read on Twitter
It's that time of year again: booklist-o-rama-lama-ding-dong time.
Let's take a look at them, through a lens adapted from George Box: "All reading lists are wrong, but some are useful".
A thread.
Let's take a look at them, through a lens adapted from George Box: "All reading lists are wrong, but some are useful".
A thread.
I have put together reading lists in the past; I am quite familiar with both the demand for them & the difficulties in compiling them. Partly due to that experience, I have come to the conclusion that, in & of themselves, they are not great instruments: they don't do much good. 2
I will say that the more specific a list's focus, the less problematic & more useful it is likely to be. A list of newly published works? Or works from underrepresented scholars? Useful. Everything you need to read to be a better soldier? Probably not great. 3
I will concentrate my critique on 'general' lists, usually put forward for the purposes of 'professional military education' or professional development/self-improvement. Other fields have similar lists: biz studies compile 'what billionaires are reading' for the same purpose. 4
The aim of the lists is laudable: Since experiential learning is slow and narrow, widening one's horizons through reading is a handy corrective. As Bismark said, "Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. The wise man learns from the mistakes of others.” 5
This is not to poke holes at any one list in particular: most lists suffer from these faults. However, to illustrate my points more clearly, allow me to use this list from @WarintheFuture: https://mwi.usma.edu/war-books-major-general-mick-ryans-2021-reading-list/ 6
Lists tend to be male & pale. Only 1/3 of the titles in General Ryan's list are authored by women (& even the edited volumes have less than equal representation by women). Moreover, very few of the authors are people of colour or from non-Western backgrounds. 7
This is worrisome for two main reasons. The 1st is that a lack of diversity turns such lists to be 'echo chambers' rather than 'horizon expanders'. The 2nd is that representation matters: it is neither inclusive nor inspirational) when people do not see authors like themselves. 8
Lists are not enough. Even when lists are diverse & inclusive, they are not sufficient by themselves. Just as education must be more than handing a student a library card, professional development requires guidance. While there are some autodidacts out there, they are rare. 9
Guidance (especially when the lists come from senior members of a profession) should take 2 forms. Rather than simply telling people *what* to read, list curators should explain *how* to read (this cannot be assumed). Moreover, curators must tell potential readers *why*. 10
Explaining why something is on a list is vital. What is the reason that something is included? What does the curator expect the reader to take away from a text? Annotation is key here & particularly allows commanders to reveal their intent. 11
Listing Thucydides, Sun Tzu, or Clausewitz sans such guidance is both overwhelming & counterproductive. While a curator cannot dictate the definitive 'lessons' from a particular text, saying nothing leaves the reader at sea. If a text is on a list for a reason, share it. 12
Again, I have tried & failed to make such 'stand-alone' lists in the past. Their brevity is their undoing. Much better, I feel, to put together a diverse, inclusive, & detailed offering, one that forces the curator to 'nail their colours to the mast'. 13
Rather than a simple list, curious readers would benefit from a structured set of probing questions, personal reflections, & and encouragement to the reader to think deeply & share widely. In short, think less 'list' and more 'syllabus'. Harder to do, but worth the effort. /FIN
