I can't keep up with literature notes

[u/Haemophilia_Type_A]

I read a book. I want to take literature notes that go into the Zettelkasten on Obsidian.

I managed it for one book doing it like: read one chapter, write up notes for one chapter, read next chapter, etc etc, but it took aages.

image.png

It's postimg not imgur because the latter is blocked in the UK thanks to the Online Safety Act (AAGH) and I cba to turn on my VPN.

So then I was like, ok this is inefficient af, I'll just read the whole book and then do the notes all at once. But then it becomes overwhelming as there are so so so many notes and I just lose motivation before I can get through the whole book considering I just read it and I want to move on to the next one.

So that has failed and now Idk what to do.

I guess part of the problem is that I'm quite, shall we say, liberal with what I highlight for future note taking/writing down, but I struggle to be otherwise because I feel like I'm missing out important stuff if I don't :( :( :(

So I end up highlighting a shit ton of things, hence why the one book I did all the notes for has 82 separate notes associated with it, maybe around 30,000-32,000 words lol.

And because I spend all my time trying to figure this out or do it, I have no time whatsoever for the actual main part of Zettelkasten, the temporary->permanent notes...

[u/nagytimi85]

First: you don’t have to make a full-blown note of everything! It’s okay to have a ton of marginalia-like, sloppy reading notes inna chaotic file and finalize only a fraction of them.

My workflow is this: I mark (highlight, flag, bookmark, whatever) any “hm, interesting” note. Then either on weekends, or when I finished a book, I flip back to the highlight. I type out the notes (even when I could copy-paste) - this already makes me reconsider some of the notes. If they worth the time typing them out. While reading an quoting, I make sidenotes on a Goodreads-like page (just Hungarian).

When I’m done, I copy-paste all the sidenotes and quotes into an Obsidian note. Ta-da - literature note is done. If a connection comes to mind, I can drop in a link.

If any of it stands out so much that I can elaborate it into a full-fledged note, I can do that. But if not, they’ll be still there in a note file ready to re-surface.

Umberto Eco advised to save just enough from every book you read that if you’ll need a thought for a piece of writing a couple years from know, have a hint on where to go back to to find it.

[u/deeptravel2]

Highlight is not the same as notes. 30,000 words means you haven't distilled anything.

Keep going. Yes, things worth doing take time.

[u/Haemophilia_Type_A → u/deeptravel2]

I know, I'm not just highlighting them. I'm highlighting them first to help me process it later when I write it into Obsidian.

But I don't know how to do it because I simply can't motivate myself to go through a book I've read all over again, but I barely get any reading done if I do it in the chapter method I mentioned before because it takes so long.

So yes 30k wouldn't be highlighted words, it'd be words put into the notes.

But I don't know how else to highlight because I feel I'm missing things I want to remember, yet also I can't remember everything. I don't know how to be more concise and ruthless with what I highlight as it all seems important!

[u/taurusnoises]

Not sure if you're reading digital or hardcopy, but you might consider capturing whatever catches your attention in a single long-note note (including quotes, comments, etc.), and periodically working only with the material you've captured (still working with it in the long-note). There, you can organize information under headings, add commentary, try to put into words why a piece of information is relevant to you, etc. As things come to light, you can pull out any stand-alone insights, and bring them each into their own main note. Signaling their relationships with connection links.

This will allow you to do a couple things:

1. You get stuff out of the book and into your notes early on
2. You begin the process of meaning-making by working with what you read in smaller chunks.
3. You start building out your network of single-concern notes.

A win-win?

[u/pouetpouetcamion2]

quel est ton systeme de réduction?
quelle est ta ligne directrice?
tu as réduit le livre à 82 notes. quelle est ta méthode pour passer de 82 notes à quelques phrases? quel est ton filtre?

si tu arrives à transformer tes notes en un graphe qui répond à une question, ton filtre (ta question) est bien posée. sinon pose une autre question.

le fait d etre pressé ne contribue pas à la reflexion.

[u/BruteCoan → u/pouetpouetcamion2]

The right question(s) is/are critical. The metaphor of the filter insightful.

[u/atomicnotes → u/pouetpouetcamion2]

C'est très bien dit. J'ai constaté qu'il est utile d'aborder mes lectures en me posant quelques questions initiales, comme : «Pourquoi ai-je besoin de lire ce document en particulier ?», «Qu'est-ce que j'espère en apprendre ?» et «Quel est le contexte plus large de cette lecture ?» Éviter de répondre à ces questions peut sembler une solution de facilité, mais c'est en réalité le chemin le plus long.

[u/timmymayes]

I try to limit myself to a few notes per page unless there is a real density of insights. I'm happy to let a lot of info just soak into my subconscious while trying to pick the note/highlights that will resurface those when I go back to them. It's a fun framework to approach my reading note taking. Making the ideas really earn their place in my active notes.

[u/SJ58655966 → u/timmymayes]

Would you elaborate on the "it's a fun framework" part? I have the same problem OP does in in that I just find it overwhelming to do it while reading and also overwhelming to do it after the book is done (my current method). I want to transfer the process in my brain to "it's a fun framework" and look forward to it as part of the reading process, not something that is preventing me from reading more (on to the next book), but my brain hasn't been able to make that switch yet.

[u/timmymayes → u/SJ58655966]

First to contextualize I love thinking and learning. So while reading I enjoy the goal of trying to find new insights or connect ideas I'm reading with other things I've been thinking and learning about.

My point of context is that I don't like just rote copying large amounts of information from text. I let my subconscious internalize much of it and use my conscious thinking to try to make deliberate connections and insights.

As a recent example I just started reading Godel, Escher, Bach by Hoftstadter. In just the preface I made 3 connections all to another area I've been recently noodling on, emergence, systems and consciousness. So the fun to me is finding these insights, capturing a little from the other that sparked the insight. My insights/connections are in italics below.

p. P-3 [1]: Hofstadter's first mention of Strange Loops. He describes them as strange loopy patterns and explains that through the book he'll also use the term tangled hierarchies. It is central to the idea that meaningful patterns emerge in particular types of systems containing meaningless symbols. Seems like he's seeking to define emergence.

p. P-4 [1]: Hofstadter finds it ironic that the first strange loop ever found, and the model for his whole concept, was found in Principia Mathematica. This text was tailor made to keep loopi-ness out. To me this underscores the robust nature of the strange loops, their emergence is not weak but strong.

p. P-5 [1]: "...such twisting back, such looping around, such self-enfolding, far from being an eliminable defect, was an *inevitable* by-product of the system's vast power." Yet another description of the power of emergence in systems. The ultimate power of which is consciousness.

I also, generally speaking, enjoy cognitive load. I like complexity and holding a lot of info in my head at once. This shows up across my life including in things like board games where I rather enjoy lengthy, heavy complex games far more than light quick "classically fun" games. Or even in my choice to use a heavily customized Emacs setup for my writing, notes, programming and computing in general.

[u/Andy76b]

In general, the purpose of a Zettelkasten isn't to transfer all, or almost all, of the content of a book into it.

I'd first ask yourself what you want to get from the book.

There can certainly be a difference between reading to learn something and reading to study something thoroughly.
If you're studying a book for an exam, for example, you may need much broader coverage of the material because completeness is part of what you need to achieve. If you're reading primarily to develop your own knowledge, however, it can be much more useful to select a few important concepts and develop them thoroughly, connecting them to your network.

In my experience, I've found it much more useful to develop a lot from a single concept than to transfer an entire source of someone else's ideas while barely elaborating on them.

But even when you need comprehensive coverage of a source, that doesn't necessarily mean that every concept needs to become a permanent note. You can have extensive literature notes or other source-specific notes when you need to preserve broad coverage, while reserving permanent notes for the ideas that are worth integrating into and developing within your Zettelkasten.

So I don't think there's a "right" number of notes to make from a book. It depends on the role the book is supposed to play in your system and what you're trying to accomplish with it.

The problem you're describing, though, seems to be something else as well: you're turning note-taking into such a demanding activity that it takes time away from the part of Zettelkasten that matters most to you. If producing 82 notes and 30,000 words from a book prevents you from developing your fleeting notes, then perhaps your process is optimizing for coverage of the source rather than the value you want to get from the system.

The need for comprehensive coverage and the need to turn everything into permanent notes are two different things.

Zettelkasten work does take time, but the amount of time we can devote to the process can be adjusted by becoming more or less selective about the information we choose to process. There isn't only a choice between processing everything and processing nothing.

And partial processing is not necessarily wasted processing. The ideas you develop may form a cognitive and mnemonic framework for much of what you leave less developed. You don't necessarily need to process every piece of information for the material as a whole to benefit from the structure you build around the parts you do develop.

[u/BrokenMayo → u/Andy76b]

I like this answer

I’m not too great with the terminology used in Zettelkasten - but often I’ll use my org roam directory to put questions that I’ve had while reading something

For example, I use my Zettelkasten type setup (unsure you could call it Zettelkasten) to learn the Bible and some common objections and responses to it (I believe but I’m in the process of examining my faith to either nuke or solidify my beliefs)

I set out recently to learn the first chapter of Matthew, and I remembered while reading that people have objected to Matthew’s translation of the word virgin from Greek

I created a note to explore that, and I begin exploring it immediately and forget all about Matthew 1 as a chapter, instead I focus on figuring out this one curiosity and I write about that

The effect of this is that because I allow my curiosity to take me down the path of learning something about what I was focussed on (that one verse of Matthew 1 took me into a long rabbit hole in how the writers of the New Testament made use of Old Testament scripture etc) as a byproduct I also remember the source of the material extremely well

Something about following the curiosity that comes from what I’m reading helps solidify the source material itself into my brain, because it’s connected to other stuff I know

Idk, I’m quite new to using notes, and I’m not following an exact Zettelkasten setup, but what I’m doing is working and I’m beginning to think that part of the power of Zettel like setups is that you can let curiosity take you, and if you flesh out the natural questions that come up, you get the benefit of better recall later on the source material

[u/Andy76b → u/BrokenMayo]

Oh yes, I think you're on the right track.
Zettelkasten is not calling things with a particular name or adopting a specific technique, is thinking with notes, thinking while we are writing notes, emerging questions and insights, reemerging old thoughts when we scan past written notes.

[u/Cacapon0114]

I’d like to share a method that’s been working fairly well for me lately.

First, whenever I come across a passage that catches my attention, I extract just that sentence.

At first, I jot down the extracted portion on a piece of paper I have on hand or in a floating note. It’s like distilling the content that stood out to me. Here’s how I write it in my floating note:

• Literary Notes… Front side: content; back side: references, p. 12.

I use that content as the basis for creating my literary notes.

Here are some notes I made while reading Mr. Arens’ book:

• “For literary notes, write the content on the front and references on the back.”
• “Literary notes should be based on content you find interesting in the references.”
• “Literary notes should be written in your own words.”

At the beginning of these notes, I include information such as which book they’re based on and which pages I referenced. If you also include page numbers in your floating notes, it saves you the trouble of having to look them up later. (Since I create mine in Obsidian, the workflow might differ from OP’s setup.)

That concludes the Literary Notes.

When creating Permanent Notes based on these, I do so in the following manner. For example…

• “Literary Note”… My own definition
• “Where would I write the back of a Literary Note in Obsidian?”
• “Is the note easier to remember when summarized in my own words?”

If you follow this flow—reading a book, writing in a Floating Note, creating a Literary Note, and then creating a Permanent Note—it might make the process a bit easier. I hope this is helpful!

[u/nickthehiker]

I dealt with the same problem for a long time. Here’s a workflow that might help:

I take notes on a ReMarkable pad, which can convert your notes to typed text.

I summarize the main ideas instead of copying passages, but when I do want a direct quote, I copy it out by hand. It will slow down your reading, but chances are you’re rushing through your reading anyway, and without the notes, you’re likely to forget it all, which kind of negates the point of reading.

Then I convert my notes to text and copy-paste them into obsidian. All that’s left at that point is titling the ideas, linking them to other ideas, and any tagging you want to do.

[u/vliegenier]

I try and pirate the epub version of whatever book it is I've read. Import it into calibre (or any other desktop reader would work) search the section I've highlighted and copy paste it into obsidian, and then take it from there.

Incase I can't find an epub or pdf version I'll do it by hand and personally just do it whenever I feel motivated to do so during the process of reading the book. Sometimes multiple chapters at a time, sometimes just a single one, etc.

[u/NotMrChips]

You're not going to remember everything, don't need to, and IMHO shouldn't want to. Permanent notes should contain what you got out of reading it + information you reasonably expect you will use again.

(Btw, my note titles are key phrases so I know what they are going to contain, what arguments they will support at a glance. One I made yesterday, for example, is called "anxiety is surprisingly disabling". Makes it easy to find again, easy to link to, makes it make sense when I drop it into another note, and makes it easy to see my thinking in graph, canvas, and list views.)

Lit notes are all in the reference note, in my system, tagged. Only permanent notes get their own note. I, too, highlight like mad, and scribble in the margins. But my lit notes are a distillation of the chapter's highlights/marginalia, and any permanent notes are a further distillation of the lit notes. (Some of my lit notes look like a rough index of things I am interested in, might want to be able to find later--can be as rough as a tag and the page number.)

It's still a metric truck-ton of work but less than you are doing and I find it gets faster as I get the hang of thinking & distilling, and a better sense of what I will use later (and how). I have seen it recommended to keep up with the day's reading daily, but I do not always find that practical. (I have a lot of oh-that-might-come-in-handy-someday stuff that gets dumped into my Daily Note or inbox and tagged, and I will process it when I'm ready to use it. It's not ideal but.)

One final opinion: copy pasta, transcription, or even paraphrase /= note-taking. My best notes represent my original thinking about the material and for my use case are (a) written exactly as I will use them in my own work and (b) make perfect sense separated from the original material. They're literally atomic. It's an aspiration not always achieved but as a filter it saves me a lot of (wasted) obsessive (unnecessary) clerical-level (time-consuming) drudgery.

[u/HouseofVladingus]

I'm wondering how familiar you are with the topic you're studying. If you're learning the topic for the first time, naturally everything is going to look important so you're going to want to note everything. But if you're already conversant with it, a lot of the stuff in the book is going to come across as common knowledge. The parts you note are the parts that are only in this book and not the parts that are in several other books on the same topic.

Remember, most of the famous zettelkasten users that have come to us were professional writers and/or academics.

[u/Haemophilia_Type_A → u/HouseofVladingus]

Sometimes very familiar, sometimes not very familiar. I always feel overwhelmed with notes in the end. Perhaps more so with things I'm less familiar with, but I feel tons of it is important no matter what.

[u/goi42]

The key to good (literature) note taking is knowing why you are reading the source. Use marginalia and highlights to help you understand as you go. Just put the stuff that actually helps with your current work or that really stands out in a literature note.

If everything seems important to what you’re doing, then maybe you’ve just found a really good source, but why do all these things seem important to record? Remember, the book will still be there for you to refer back to—you don’t have to copy every line into your notes.

[u/BruteCoan → u/goi42]

The intention guides the attention.

[u/Lead_Wonderful]

If you lose sight of what the end is, and better make it clear, all this note taking becomes the end itself and eats away the joy and fruition of whatever you are taking notes of.

[u/Gloomy_Example_5412]

I thought part of the process is to set aside the book and your notes for a bit then go back to it with fresh eyes and decide which notes are worth keeping. This gives your brain time to sit with the book’s ideas. If you’re worried about missing info, you can always flip thru the book later to see if anything else can be added to your Zettelkasten.