What do you think?
Rate this book
Antinet Zettelkasten: A Knowledge System That Will Turn You Into a Prolific Reader, Researcher and Writer
If you're interested in becoming a prolific reader, researcher, or writer, then learning the true principles of Zettelkasten could change your life.
Antinet Zettelkasten details the Zettelkasten in all its glory——in its original form——the analog form.
At this time, the book is only available directly from its author at a special "at cost" pricing (over 76% off retail).
Here is the
Antinet Zettelkasten details the Zettelkasten in all its glory——in its original form——the analog form.
At this time, the book is only available directly from its author at a special "at cost" pricing (over 76% off retail).
Here is the
594 pages, Paperback
First published December 9, 2022
191 people are currently reading
400 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 89 reviews
December 29, 2022
For those looking to learn how to create an analogue zettelkasten, this book contains useful ideas but is badly structured and badly written. It should not be considered the default option for learning how to create a zettelkasten, digital or analogue. It is full of theory, and internecine conflicts.
Really, it should be considered two books in one: a guide to creating and using an analogue zettelkasten (and this is where the most practical information is to be found); and a wild jeremiad against digital toolsets and the people who use them, as well as people who have written on zettelkasten since Luhmann. There is an easy rule: anyone who wrote about slip-box style notetaking before Luhmann is fine, anyone who writes about them afterwards is a charlatan.
Obsession with Luhmann's original work as the only relevant example The book is troubled by an obsession with Luhmann, rather than with developing a system that works best. It has the chief effect of turning Sonke Ahrens into the figure of the devil, who leads the faithful astray. In these passages, we see Scheper as the figure of the inquisitor, routing out those heretics who have fallen from Luhmannian truth. If this criticism seems overwritten, I trace it to the section where Scheper coins the term Ahrensianism to cover Ahrens' description of the method, thus instigating this whole metaphor himself. There was a similar troubling moment on this theme where Scheper describes the importance of only going to primary sources, not secondhand accounts: he then hurriedly claims that this book is a primary source rather than the Luhmann essays and books that he frequently cites.
Oversold claims about handwriting A large portion of the book is given over to the claim that handwriting is superior to digital tools for developing thoughts in a zettelkasten. There is a long section about the science of these claims, depending largely on the work summarized in Fiona McPherson's Effective Notetaking. However, at the end of this section Scheper cites and acknowledges a study that undermines his primary claim about handwriting. Rather than rewrite the section, to nuance it in the light of these new findings, he maintains throughout the book that there is strong scientific evidence that handwriting is superior for developing thinking. I think it is a credit to him to be open about citing contrary evidence; what I think the problem is here is that this evidence has not altered his view at all. A more acceptable version of the book would have repeated his suggestion — made much of elsewhere in the book — that it should be for the reader to test and decide which is better; and that he makes this claim on the strength of his own experiences. But that has not stopped him from over-egging the claim to scientific truth hugely across the book.
Unacceptably cavalier view on loss of zettelkasten Scheper dismisses the concerns of those who are creating analogue zettelkasten and worry that their efforts will be destroyed by accident such as fire or flood. Well, the truth is that they could be destroyed, and this shouldn't concern you at all, in Scheper's view, because they are only tools to bettering your understanding. Once they've been written and you've done the thinking, their destruction is a minor inconvenience. This view is simply unacceptable. The loss of years of work would be devastating. It seems like a total cognitive disconnect: to be able to believe that exactly the slips that you wrote in your own hand as being so valuable and so central to refreshing your knowledge on the one hand, and on the other hand for their destruction to be of no concern.
It is very digressive. For every useful point or technique the book describes, it will involve you in a long and sometimes vitriolic discussion of why digital zettelkasten do such-and-such-a-thing worse, many of which are not even connected to the issue at hand. In the digressive respect, it is like Luhmann's own writings. Scheper praises this early on in the book as helping to keep secret knowledge only for the initiates who are willing to work for it. I suggest this is a mistaken view.
It is repetitive. This also shows one of the primary weaknesses of using a zettelkasten to write: numerous passages were almost verbatim copies of one another. This shows up in the citations as well. Each time Antonin Sertillages is mentioned — and he is mentioned a lot, as are the other touchstone references — he is introduced as "the Catholic philosopher Antonin Sertillages"; each time Johannes Schmidt is mentioned, we get a variation of "the greatest scholar on Luhmann today"; each time Alberto Cevolini appears, he is always "the scholar Alberto Cevolini". We know who these people are by page 20, but still they are introduced afresh each time until the book ends at — *checks notes* — page 739. There were multiple sections that were largely repetitions of one another; for instance, the section about the metaphor of the zettelkasten as neurons, or how it repeats the structure of human memories. Eliminating these repetitions could have produced a more usable book, perhaps a third of the length.
Self-burn. The book warns against being sucked in by fast-talking sales pitches that promise the world and offer little in the way of proof of results. Scheper begins the book with a dissection of the two versions of the subtitle of the book, which are accompanied by claims that this will allow you to produce "genius level" work, and turn you into a "machine for publishing". Coupled with Scheper's invention of lots of jargon terms — for instance the term "antinet" itself, which is an incredibly counterintuitive 'triple-entendre' — and the regular decrying of all others as not just mistaken but as duplicitous, this book raised almost every red-flag. I think that a significant portion of the book can be considered, in Scheper's words, copywriting "horse shit", or in my preferred British vernacular, absolute bollocks.
Really, it should be considered two books in one: a guide to creating and using an analogue zettelkasten (and this is where the most practical information is to be found); and a wild jeremiad against digital toolsets and the people who use them, as well as people who have written on zettelkasten since Luhmann. There is an easy rule: anyone who wrote about slip-box style notetaking before Luhmann is fine, anyone who writes about them afterwards is a charlatan.
Obsession with Luhmann's original work as the only relevant example The book is troubled by an obsession with Luhmann, rather than with developing a system that works best. It has the chief effect of turning Sonke Ahrens into the figure of the devil, who leads the faithful astray. In these passages, we see Scheper as the figure of the inquisitor, routing out those heretics who have fallen from Luhmannian truth. If this criticism seems overwritten, I trace it to the section where Scheper coins the term Ahrensianism to cover Ahrens' description of the method, thus instigating this whole metaphor himself. There was a similar troubling moment on this theme where Scheper describes the importance of only going to primary sources, not secondhand accounts: he then hurriedly claims that this book is a primary source rather than the Luhmann essays and books that he frequently cites.
Oversold claims about handwriting A large portion of the book is given over to the claim that handwriting is superior to digital tools for developing thoughts in a zettelkasten. There is a long section about the science of these claims, depending largely on the work summarized in Fiona McPherson's Effective Notetaking. However, at the end of this section Scheper cites and acknowledges a study that undermines his primary claim about handwriting. Rather than rewrite the section, to nuance it in the light of these new findings, he maintains throughout the book that there is strong scientific evidence that handwriting is superior for developing thinking. I think it is a credit to him to be open about citing contrary evidence; what I think the problem is here is that this evidence has not altered his view at all. A more acceptable version of the book would have repeated his suggestion — made much of elsewhere in the book — that it should be for the reader to test and decide which is better; and that he makes this claim on the strength of his own experiences. But that has not stopped him from over-egging the claim to scientific truth hugely across the book.
Unacceptably cavalier view on loss of zettelkasten Scheper dismisses the concerns of those who are creating analogue zettelkasten and worry that their efforts will be destroyed by accident such as fire or flood. Well, the truth is that they could be destroyed, and this shouldn't concern you at all, in Scheper's view, because they are only tools to bettering your understanding. Once they've been written and you've done the thinking, their destruction is a minor inconvenience. This view is simply unacceptable. The loss of years of work would be devastating. It seems like a total cognitive disconnect: to be able to believe that exactly the slips that you wrote in your own hand as being so valuable and so central to refreshing your knowledge on the one hand, and on the other hand for their destruction to be of no concern.
It is very digressive. For every useful point or technique the book describes, it will involve you in a long and sometimes vitriolic discussion of why digital zettelkasten do such-and-such-a-thing worse, many of which are not even connected to the issue at hand. In the digressive respect, it is like Luhmann's own writings. Scheper praises this early on in the book as helping to keep secret knowledge only for the initiates who are willing to work for it. I suggest this is a mistaken view.
It is repetitive. This also shows one of the primary weaknesses of using a zettelkasten to write: numerous passages were almost verbatim copies of one another. This shows up in the citations as well. Each time Antonin Sertillages is mentioned — and he is mentioned a lot, as are the other touchstone references — he is introduced as "the Catholic philosopher Antonin Sertillages"; each time Johannes Schmidt is mentioned, we get a variation of "the greatest scholar on Luhmann today"; each time Alberto Cevolini appears, he is always "the scholar Alberto Cevolini". We know who these people are by page 20, but still they are introduced afresh each time until the book ends at — *checks notes* — page 739. There were multiple sections that were largely repetitions of one another; for instance, the section about the metaphor of the zettelkasten as neurons, or how it repeats the structure of human memories. Eliminating these repetitions could have produced a more usable book, perhaps a third of the length.
Self-burn. The book warns against being sucked in by fast-talking sales pitches that promise the world and offer little in the way of proof of results. Scheper begins the book with a dissection of the two versions of the subtitle of the book, which are accompanied by claims that this will allow you to produce "genius level" work, and turn you into a "machine for publishing". Coupled with Scheper's invention of lots of jargon terms — for instance the term "antinet" itself, which is an incredibly counterintuitive 'triple-entendre' — and the regular decrying of all others as not just mistaken but as duplicitous, this book raised almost every red-flag. I think that a significant portion of the book can be considered, in Scheper's words, copywriting "horse shit", or in my preferred British vernacular, absolute bollocks.
January 9, 2023
OVERALL:
I have very mixed feelings about this book. It did convince me and teach how me to set up an analog zettelkasten. Many specific facts about Luhmann's zettelkasten are found nowhere else. However, the author rambles a lot and this book could be much shorter, which prevents me from recommending this book without qualifications.
THE GOOD:
There are some true gems in here about how to organize a zettelkasten system in the manner of Luhmann's. Scheper combines multiple sources with his own experience to illuminate the theory and practice of these analog noteboxes. He goes beyond the simplified zettelkasten described in "How to take smart notes" by Ahrens (from which seemingly every other source pulls from) and goes into a lot more detail on the context in which Niklas Luhmann made his notebox, goes over multiple examples from Luhmann's box, and imbues it with his own experience in writing notes for a few years.
Thanks to this book, I've been able to set up an analog notebox, moving from a digital zettelkasten I've been using for the past 2 years.
In addition, the chapter on taking notes from books was really helpful. I now take notes from books on an index cards as Scheper advocates and it has improved my processing of the books tremendously compared to highlighting passages.
THE BAD:
Scheper rambles a lot. The introduction could be much shorter, I almost stopped reading after reading him emphasize smoking his cigars 4 times within one page.
If you read this book cover to cover, as I did, he repeats himself multiple times. I've lost count of the number of times he writes a paragraph leading me on about a concept, only to conclude with "we will talk about this more later" and moving on to a completely different topic! Then, later on, he will repeat similar ideas and elaborate. Why even bother expanding on the topic the first time??
This repetition occurs most for the importance of handwriting and the emergence consciousness. For handwriting, repeating it so often can get quite preachy. I'm willing to try handwriting (and I did!) but I don't need to be told how crucial handwriting is in every other chapter of the book.
Regarding the emergence of consciousness, this is a theme that Scheper comes back again and again. I eventually resorted to skipping these sections altogether, as I found them very hard to read. No, I don't think the notebox forms an "artificial consciousness" or "second mind". Perhaps more precisely you could think of it within the framework of "embodied cognition", in that our cognition resides not just in our mind but is shaped by our physical presence and interaction with the world. A notebox by itself is not any more conscious than a hard drive! Overall, I found these "consciousness" sections did not properly interact with the cognitive science literature and thus hard to read.
THE UGLY:
Scheper pulls heavily from Fiona McPherson's work on notetaking to explain the advantages of the strategies that Luhmann came upon. However, he constantly switches citing her by her name or "one cognitive scientist" later in the main text. I didn't understand the need to alternate between the two? This is also a super minor nitpick, but he also cites Jordan Peterson twice, which just disrupted my flow.
I have very mixed feelings about this book. It did convince me and teach how me to set up an analog zettelkasten. Many specific facts about Luhmann's zettelkasten are found nowhere else. However, the author rambles a lot and this book could be much shorter, which prevents me from recommending this book without qualifications.
THE GOOD:
There are some true gems in here about how to organize a zettelkasten system in the manner of Luhmann's. Scheper combines multiple sources with his own experience to illuminate the theory and practice of these analog noteboxes. He goes beyond the simplified zettelkasten described in "How to take smart notes" by Ahrens (from which seemingly every other source pulls from) and goes into a lot more detail on the context in which Niklas Luhmann made his notebox, goes over multiple examples from Luhmann's box, and imbues it with his own experience in writing notes for a few years.
Thanks to this book, I've been able to set up an analog notebox, moving from a digital zettelkasten I've been using for the past 2 years.
In addition, the chapter on taking notes from books was really helpful. I now take notes from books on an index cards as Scheper advocates and it has improved my processing of the books tremendously compared to highlighting passages.
THE BAD:
Scheper rambles a lot. The introduction could be much shorter, I almost stopped reading after reading him emphasize smoking his cigars 4 times within one page.
If you read this book cover to cover, as I did, he repeats himself multiple times. I've lost count of the number of times he writes a paragraph leading me on about a concept, only to conclude with "we will talk about this more later" and moving on to a completely different topic! Then, later on, he will repeat similar ideas and elaborate. Why even bother expanding on the topic the first time??
This repetition occurs most for the importance of handwriting and the emergence consciousness. For handwriting, repeating it so often can get quite preachy. I'm willing to try handwriting (and I did!) but I don't need to be told how crucial handwriting is in every other chapter of the book.
Regarding the emergence of consciousness, this is a theme that Scheper comes back again and again. I eventually resorted to skipping these sections altogether, as I found them very hard to read. No, I don't think the notebox forms an "artificial consciousness" or "second mind". Perhaps more precisely you could think of it within the framework of "embodied cognition", in that our cognition resides not just in our mind but is shaped by our physical presence and interaction with the world. A notebox by itself is not any more conscious than a hard drive! Overall, I found these "consciousness" sections did not properly interact with the cognitive science literature and thus hard to read.
THE UGLY:
Scheper pulls heavily from Fiona McPherson's work on notetaking to explain the advantages of the strategies that Luhmann came upon. However, he constantly switches citing her by her name or "one cognitive scientist" later in the main text. I didn't understand the need to alternate between the two? This is also a super minor nitpick, but he also cites Jordan Peterson twice, which just disrupted my flow.
May 8, 2024
Very obnoxious; not exactly “genius output” but he sure does think he’s smart. Bonus negative points for the mediocre line drawings by “the fiancée.”
Ad hominem type attacks on others in the field showcase the immaturity of the author (crypto boi at heart). Beyond arrogant, and yet not even a book. Also: typos, delusions of grandeur, privilege, etc,
Perhaps author compiled while on shrooms, would make his ode to the ghost in the box much less cringe.
Ad hominem type attacks on others in the field showcase the immaturity of the author (crypto boi at heart). Beyond arrogant, and yet not even a book. Also: typos, delusions of grandeur, privilege, etc,
Perhaps author compiled while on shrooms, would make his ode to the ghost in the box much less cringe.
June 16, 2024
This is a pretty hefty book, at nearly 600 pages in print. There is some repetition in the early chapters, but it's not excessive. It allows individual chapters to stand alone and/or be read out of order without missing anything critical, rather than reading like the author padded the book by repeating himself over and over.
A fundamental facet of the premise is that the author treats all digital iterations referencing "zettelkasten" as though they're illegitimate, which I believe is incorrect. It's totally possible, in my opinion, to have a digital "slip box"/"note box," as there's no inherent reason digital notes can't be a typed equivalent of handwritten index cards. I see this as little different than Scheper's use of 4x6 cards when Luhmann used "Octavo" (which seems to be approximately 6x9") non-cardstock. Just because many -- even most -- digital databases aren't true zettelkasten making use of the same systemic structure Luhmann used doesn't mean none can be.
A digital note-taking app isn't a system at all; it's a tool. Obsidian, for example, isn't a zettelkasten any more than a box of index cards and a pen are a zettelkasten. But either can be used to build a zettelkasten -- and either can be used in ways that are not zettelkasten.
The fact that Luhmann never used or spoke of digital files is anachronistic; personal computers didn't exist for most of his life and we don't know what his take on them would have been if he'd had access to them when he was building his zettelkasten. Sheper argues that "analog" is an essential principle of a true zettelkasten, but this is, in my opinion, largely interpretation. Luhmann said the system must be external, and he describes his own external system, which was analog. But a digital database is external!
There are other assumptions here I think are faulty. e.g. "The problem with thinking of the Antinet as a notetaking system is that, well, it's not a notetaking system! The term notetaking connotes the idea that you're writing down facts or thoughts that are already formed." Says who? Certainly a note can be a fact or an already-formed thought, but I've never seen notes as limited to this. What if the real problem isn't with calling it "notetaking," but in our having a poor definition of notetaking? Is it possible the author is incorrectly denigrating thousands of people's "notetaking systems" based on not-always-correct assumptions about the inferences people make regarding terms like "notetaking" and "personal knowledge management"?
He seems also to imply that concerns about such things as "workflow," which digital software users discuss, are irrelevant with an analog system. They're not irrelevant, though; the analog system requires a workflow, too. What the user of the exact original system is exempt from is identifying a workflow. He merely needs to copy the existing one. In similar fashion, a perceived need to set up the zettelkasten in a particular analog way can result in spending a good deal of time reworking existing notes into a particular format, which is little different from getting caught up in themes and folder structures of a digital workspace.
Certain other objections to digital seem to be false or exaggerated, as well. For instance, the argument is made on page 169 that with a digital database "you can never be 100% absolutely certain that it was indeed you who wrote the text," because you could have copied and pasted the thought from elsewhere. But this is not a digital-specific concern. You can copy an idea that isn't yours from a book or journal article, too, and fail to make note of the source, even if you're writing by hand. Students have plagiarized that way for much of history! Whether digital or analog, the most significant means of being certain a thought was really your own is knowing your own "voice." And there seems to be an all-or-nothing perspective, as though people must do everything by hand or they can't possibly be writing anything by hand -- another faulty assumption. It seems to me this book could have been more helpful had it taken a more balanced and honest view of the weaknesses of digital systems.
With all that said, it is completely legitimate to insist that the principles Luhmann said are essential are, in fact, essential to any system one is claiming uses his model, and the three remaining principles are solid in their presentation throughout the book, even if I believe the analog bias is overstated, thus skewing the idea of "external." It's very meaty and will provide you with a thorough understanding of why the zettelkasten is set up the way it is, as well as how to implement it for yourself.
Be aware, though, that this is front-loaded with a lot of theory in the beginning which, while well-written, is heavily "academic" and difficult to slog through. This is made more difficult by the fact that the theory is all developed in reference to a specific system which the reader (presumably) has no concrete understanding of. The theory is addressed first because it's necessary to understand why each element of the system is important, but it would have been more accessible, I think, had Scheper given a high-level view of the theory, then described the system in detail, then returned to discuss the theory in greater depth.
The section on selection of reading material and notes has some helpful recommendations, especially for those who don't already have a working process. It has an overemphasis, though, in my opinion, on selection for usefulness to an immediate project. Our own personal development as individuals is a perfectly valid "project," and a hyper-emphasis on only saving notes relevant to the immediate external project one is working on can potentially undermine the reader's intuition about what's important to him.
Of note for Christian readers is that a section in the early part of the book as illustrative the idea that most of New Testament Christianity isn't Christianity. Of course, Luhmann himself was not a Christian, either. Some of what he built was conditioned on certain presuppositions -- for example, that "Humans cannot communicate; not even their brains can communicate; not even their conscious minds can communicate. Only communication can communicate." (pg. 88) As a Christian, I disagree with these foundational assertions, so I must filter what he thought, said, and built to produce something consistent with what I believe to be true.
If I could give half stars I'd rate this 4.5.
A fundamental facet of the premise is that the author treats all digital iterations referencing "zettelkasten" as though they're illegitimate, which I believe is incorrect. It's totally possible, in my opinion, to have a digital "slip box"/"note box," as there's no inherent reason digital notes can't be a typed equivalent of handwritten index cards. I see this as little different than Scheper's use of 4x6 cards when Luhmann used "Octavo" (which seems to be approximately 6x9") non-cardstock. Just because many -- even most -- digital databases aren't true zettelkasten making use of the same systemic structure Luhmann used doesn't mean none can be.
A digital note-taking app isn't a system at all; it's a tool. Obsidian, for example, isn't a zettelkasten any more than a box of index cards and a pen are a zettelkasten. But either can be used to build a zettelkasten -- and either can be used in ways that are not zettelkasten.
The fact that Luhmann never used or spoke of digital files is anachronistic; personal computers didn't exist for most of his life and we don't know what his take on them would have been if he'd had access to them when he was building his zettelkasten. Sheper argues that "analog" is an essential principle of a true zettelkasten, but this is, in my opinion, largely interpretation. Luhmann said the system must be external, and he describes his own external system, which was analog. But a digital database is external!
There are other assumptions here I think are faulty. e.g. "The problem with thinking of the Antinet as a notetaking system is that, well, it's not a notetaking system! The term notetaking connotes the idea that you're writing down facts or thoughts that are already formed." Says who? Certainly a note can be a fact or an already-formed thought, but I've never seen notes as limited to this. What if the real problem isn't with calling it "notetaking," but in our having a poor definition of notetaking? Is it possible the author is incorrectly denigrating thousands of people's "notetaking systems" based on not-always-correct assumptions about the inferences people make regarding terms like "notetaking" and "personal knowledge management"?
He seems also to imply that concerns about such things as "workflow," which digital software users discuss, are irrelevant with an analog system. They're not irrelevant, though; the analog system requires a workflow, too. What the user of the exact original system is exempt from is identifying a workflow. He merely needs to copy the existing one. In similar fashion, a perceived need to set up the zettelkasten in a particular analog way can result in spending a good deal of time reworking existing notes into a particular format, which is little different from getting caught up in themes and folder structures of a digital workspace.
Certain other objections to digital seem to be false or exaggerated, as well. For instance, the argument is made on page 169 that with a digital database "you can never be 100% absolutely certain that it was indeed you who wrote the text," because you could have copied and pasted the thought from elsewhere. But this is not a digital-specific concern. You can copy an idea that isn't yours from a book or journal article, too, and fail to make note of the source, even if you're writing by hand. Students have plagiarized that way for much of history! Whether digital or analog, the most significant means of being certain a thought was really your own is knowing your own "voice." And there seems to be an all-or-nothing perspective, as though people must do everything by hand or they can't possibly be writing anything by hand -- another faulty assumption. It seems to me this book could have been more helpful had it taken a more balanced and honest view of the weaknesses of digital systems.
With all that said, it is completely legitimate to insist that the principles Luhmann said are essential are, in fact, essential to any system one is claiming uses his model, and the three remaining principles are solid in their presentation throughout the book, even if I believe the analog bias is overstated, thus skewing the idea of "external." It's very meaty and will provide you with a thorough understanding of why the zettelkasten is set up the way it is, as well as how to implement it for yourself.
Be aware, though, that this is front-loaded with a lot of theory in the beginning which, while well-written, is heavily "academic" and difficult to slog through. This is made more difficult by the fact that the theory is all developed in reference to a specific system which the reader (presumably) has no concrete understanding of. The theory is addressed first because it's necessary to understand why each element of the system is important, but it would have been more accessible, I think, had Scheper given a high-level view of the theory, then described the system in detail, then returned to discuss the theory in greater depth.
The section on selection of reading material and notes has some helpful recommendations, especially for those who don't already have a working process. It has an overemphasis, though, in my opinion, on selection for usefulness to an immediate project. Our own personal development as individuals is a perfectly valid "project," and a hyper-emphasis on only saving notes relevant to the immediate external project one is working on can potentially undermine the reader's intuition about what's important to him.
Of note for Christian readers is that a section in the early part of the book as illustrative the idea that most of New Testament Christianity isn't Christianity. Of course, Luhmann himself was not a Christian, either. Some of what he built was conditioned on certain presuppositions -- for example, that "Humans cannot communicate; not even their brains can communicate; not even their conscious minds can communicate. Only communication can communicate." (pg. 88) As a Christian, I disagree with these foundational assertions, so I must filter what he thought, said, and built to produce something consistent with what I believe to be true.
If I could give half stars I'd rate this 4.5.
April 9, 2023
Mortimer Adler's How to Read a Book on steroids. For lifelong learners out there this is hands down one of the most important books to pick up and put to practice.
November 2, 2024
I wanted to like this book so much. I love the premise- I'd learned enough about Zettelkasten prior to this book to be intrigued- but still confused about how it worked. I bought this book hoping for a strong example and primer, but sadly, this book is not it.
The thing that stands out to me about this book is that it is so long- unnecessarily. There is no reason someone should need to read a 500 page book about this topic to understand it. In many ways, I think that the length of this book interferes with reader comprehension. Also, I concede I might be wrong- but I don't find first author descriptions of thought processes, beliefs, or such narratives to be super useful. So much of this book ended up being just that- unnecessary description of the author's thought processes. There is so much of this book that is just filler, unrelated to Zettelkasten, how to implement it, or notetaking in general.
Early on in the book he writes:
"I couldn't care less about ascribing to academic conventions (i.e. aca-demic jargon)." Yet- he also tries to make the case that academics and researchers could benefit from his way teaching the zettlekasten. This always grinds my gears, when someone who has no experience doing something develops a tool, a process, or a framework that they think could have decent application to some field they have no experience in. But aside from that- I am not sure what that is supposed to mean. Because a lot of academics are criticized for using 5 words to describe something that only needs 3 words. Or is he saying that he was going eschew organizing and developing his material so that it could be understood by a reader? Or is he giving himself a pass on trying to write well by saying, "I am not an academic, I am going to write using my own voice," like that is some merit badge. It's not. It's not a flex to barf your thoughts into a document and self-publish it. Moreover, Scheper's insistence on writing in his "own voice" made this book much more difficult to get through. I think this is nearly always the case when someone relies as heavily on the second-person POV as Scheper does in this book.
This book could have strongly benefitted from professional editing. A professional likely would have cut this thing down to a reasonable 250 pages and called it a day. What do I mean? On page 692 of the Kindle version of the book, he gets into a tangent about perception and perspective. He defines and describes the terms and their Latin origins in 5 short, choppy paragraphs. It seems like he decided that reasonable length books are for chumps and that this book was going to be unnecessarily and wastefully long. And took sections like this one and basically had AI write 5 short paragraphs on the difference between the two.
The thing is, that writing well is hard. And succinctly communicating ideas is incredibly hard. It grinds my gears when people think that writing a book is just writing. So much of it is the dull and boring work of revising, reframing, reconsidering the content, and chopping it down.
Grammar/Syntax Errors:
It may be due to what happens when a person puts a digital file on Ebook publishing platforms- but there were so many places that got extra line breaks etc. There are spots where he repeats the same concept or nearly the same line immediately following- so the effect is just sloppy. For example on page 554 of the iPad Kindle version, he says, "The Antinet is constructed in a way that emphasizes the two laws that govern through. The concept that thought is governed by two laws derives from British philosophers John Locke, David Hume, George Berkeley, David Hartley and John Stuart Mill, who suggested that thoughts are governed by two components." Like- its just tedious.
Low Quality Illustrations:
I admit to being influenced by social media in this purchase. I saw the images in the social media ads that are aesthetic and was like, "TAKE MY MONEY". Unfortunately, those images were just for social media. The illustrations and images in his book are not the ones that are in the social media ads. I admit, I am a shallow, shallow person who likes shiny, pretty things. But I was not impressed with his illustrations nor the photos of his cards. I was mostly embarrassed that he thought it was fine to publish cards with his less than ideal handwriting.
I agree that there are parts of this process/topic need graphical explanations or images (of cards), but it grinds my gears to have such low production value for a book. I am also recognizing that my eyes are old- so that may just be a me thing. But I thought they could have been a lot better designed. It seems like many of these could have been easily designed in Canva- but there is probably a reason he chose not to go that route. I think that for $20 (or whatever I spent on the hard copy plus the kindle versions), authors owe it to the reader to put some effort into producing a high quality product.
Style
While I am a strong proponent of plain language and simple, straight-forward construction and syntax, I thought his method of writing in 1 and 2 sentence paragraphs was tedious. TBH, this book reads like something that could have been a 3k-4k word blog post. To me, that is how you know good writing, is when it is effortless and easy to read. This book is unnecessarily tedious. Also, I immediately hate it when, in the first chapter an author says, "It might make sense to start with chapter 11." If that is where you think it should start- that is your chapter 1. Everything from chapters 2-10 are probably not necessary.
He goes into a lot of unnecessary detail for no reason. In fact, I believe that this way of writing and his general organization of the book decreased my comprehension of this area topic. It very much read like, "Luhmann did this, but it was a little different than the thing Ahrens did, but the thing that Ahrens did was shit anyway, so here is something completely different..."
Weird Beef:
In Chapter 13, Scheper has these "guidelines" about source selection that are just bizarre, for a book on taking notes. Basically, he refers to a lot of what is published and consumed in traditional spaces as being "horse shit". This section ends up being a rant that reads like a person who was convinced that this was going to be the next "4 Work Week" but publishers were not convinced of this idea.
He also shits on Ahrens' book (How to Take Smart Notes) a lot.
I get the ick when I see someone profusely cite like he does. First, most of the authors he cites are white dudes. I am immediately suspicious of writers and researchers whose advice is all by white dudes. That made sense 100 years ago. In 2024, there is no reason a person's reference list should be so homogenous- it says a lot about his process. Also, I am suspicious of people who talk about the valuable things to be learned from the book "Atlas Shrugged".
TBH, it feels like is a tech bro came across Ahrens' book and added, "Write a better Zettelkasten book" on his "bucket list" written on a whiteboard. And when he had a period where he was not employed in regular 9 to 5 work and convinced himself that he would just "be a writer" and "coach". He then wrote a 4,000 word stream of conscious draft in a fever dream, decided that that wouldn't be long enough for a book, then spent the next 8 months using AI to write large sections of his manuscript, and create images for his public social media feed.
I am annoyed I bought this book.
The thing that stands out to me about this book is that it is so long- unnecessarily. There is no reason someone should need to read a 500 page book about this topic to understand it. In many ways, I think that the length of this book interferes with reader comprehension. Also, I concede I might be wrong- but I don't find first author descriptions of thought processes, beliefs, or such narratives to be super useful. So much of this book ended up being just that- unnecessary description of the author's thought processes. There is so much of this book that is just filler, unrelated to Zettelkasten, how to implement it, or notetaking in general.
Early on in the book he writes:
"I couldn't care less about ascribing to academic conventions (i.e. aca-demic jargon)." Yet- he also tries to make the case that academics and researchers could benefit from his way teaching the zettlekasten. This always grinds my gears, when someone who has no experience doing something develops a tool, a process, or a framework that they think could have decent application to some field they have no experience in. But aside from that- I am not sure what that is supposed to mean. Because a lot of academics are criticized for using 5 words to describe something that only needs 3 words. Or is he saying that he was going eschew organizing and developing his material so that it could be understood by a reader? Or is he giving himself a pass on trying to write well by saying, "I am not an academic, I am going to write using my own voice," like that is some merit badge. It's not. It's not a flex to barf your thoughts into a document and self-publish it. Moreover, Scheper's insistence on writing in his "own voice" made this book much more difficult to get through. I think this is nearly always the case when someone relies as heavily on the second-person POV as Scheper does in this book.
This book could have strongly benefitted from professional editing. A professional likely would have cut this thing down to a reasonable 250 pages and called it a day. What do I mean? On page 692 of the Kindle version of the book, he gets into a tangent about perception and perspective. He defines and describes the terms and their Latin origins in 5 short, choppy paragraphs. It seems like he decided that reasonable length books are for chumps and that this book was going to be unnecessarily and wastefully long. And took sections like this one and basically had AI write 5 short paragraphs on the difference between the two.
The thing is, that writing well is hard. And succinctly communicating ideas is incredibly hard. It grinds my gears when people think that writing a book is just writing. So much of it is the dull and boring work of revising, reframing, reconsidering the content, and chopping it down.
Grammar/Syntax Errors:
It may be due to what happens when a person puts a digital file on Ebook publishing platforms- but there were so many places that got extra line breaks etc. There are spots where he repeats the same concept or nearly the same line immediately following- so the effect is just sloppy. For example on page 554 of the iPad Kindle version, he says, "The Antinet is constructed in a way that emphasizes the two laws that govern through. The concept that thought is governed by two laws derives from British philosophers John Locke, David Hume, George Berkeley, David Hartley and John Stuart Mill, who suggested that thoughts are governed by two components." Like- its just tedious.
Low Quality Illustrations:
I admit to being influenced by social media in this purchase. I saw the images in the social media ads that are aesthetic and was like, "TAKE MY MONEY". Unfortunately, those images were just for social media. The illustrations and images in his book are not the ones that are in the social media ads. I admit, I am a shallow, shallow person who likes shiny, pretty things. But I was not impressed with his illustrations nor the photos of his cards. I was mostly embarrassed that he thought it was fine to publish cards with his less than ideal handwriting.
I agree that there are parts of this process/topic need graphical explanations or images (of cards), but it grinds my gears to have such low production value for a book. I am also recognizing that my eyes are old- so that may just be a me thing. But I thought they could have been a lot better designed. It seems like many of these could have been easily designed in Canva- but there is probably a reason he chose not to go that route. I think that for $20 (or whatever I spent on the hard copy plus the kindle versions), authors owe it to the reader to put some effort into producing a high quality product.
Style
While I am a strong proponent of plain language and simple, straight-forward construction and syntax, I thought his method of writing in 1 and 2 sentence paragraphs was tedious. TBH, this book reads like something that could have been a 3k-4k word blog post. To me, that is how you know good writing, is when it is effortless and easy to read. This book is unnecessarily tedious. Also, I immediately hate it when, in the first chapter an author says, "It might make sense to start with chapter 11." If that is where you think it should start- that is your chapter 1. Everything from chapters 2-10 are probably not necessary.
He goes into a lot of unnecessary detail for no reason. In fact, I believe that this way of writing and his general organization of the book decreased my comprehension of this area topic. It very much read like, "Luhmann did this, but it was a little different than the thing Ahrens did, but the thing that Ahrens did was shit anyway, so here is something completely different..."
Weird Beef:
In Chapter 13, Scheper has these "guidelines" about source selection that are just bizarre, for a book on taking notes. Basically, he refers to a lot of what is published and consumed in traditional spaces as being "horse shit". This section ends up being a rant that reads like a person who was convinced that this was going to be the next "4 Work Week" but publishers were not convinced of this idea.
He also shits on Ahrens' book (How to Take Smart Notes) a lot.
I get the ick when I see someone profusely cite like he does. First, most of the authors he cites are white dudes. I am immediately suspicious of writers and researchers whose advice is all by white dudes. That made sense 100 years ago. In 2024, there is no reason a person's reference list should be so homogenous- it says a lot about his process. Also, I am suspicious of people who talk about the valuable things to be learned from the book "Atlas Shrugged".
TBH, it feels like is a tech bro came across Ahrens' book and added, "Write a better Zettelkasten book" on his "bucket list" written on a whiteboard. And when he had a period where he was not employed in regular 9 to 5 work and convinced himself that he would just "be a writer" and "coach". He then wrote a 4,000 word stream of conscious draft in a fever dream, decided that that wouldn't be long enough for a book, then spent the next 8 months using AI to write large sections of his manuscript, and create images for his public social media feed.
I am annoyed I bought this book.
July 31, 2023
A niche topic that doesn't appeal to all. I was hopeful for this book, but ended up forcing myself to finish. The sections about the actual set up and of Luhmann's history were interesting and well done. For the setup, the pictures were a good touch fit those who haven't seen the author's videos.
The book however was significantly weakened by the large number of tangents and extraneous material. It frankly could have been more tightly edited and shortened by at least a hundred pages, likely more. The author's arrogance is also obnoxious, insisting that this analog format is the best without very strong arguments. His most common argument is that Luhmann did it - but a success story of 1 is not the answer he thinks it is. I think the only argument that made real sense was the discussion of how links were prioritized and hierarchical in an analog system compared to a digital system where the links are flat and web like. I will not reread this.
The book however was significantly weakened by the large number of tangents and extraneous material. It frankly could have been more tightly edited and shortened by at least a hundred pages, likely more. The author's arrogance is also obnoxious, insisting that this analog format is the best without very strong arguments. His most common argument is that Luhmann did it - but a success story of 1 is not the answer he thinks it is. I think the only argument that made real sense was the discussion of how links were prioritized and hierarchical in an analog system compared to a digital system where the links are flat and web like. I will not reread this.
May 12, 2024
A Bunch of Nice Words, Strung Together
But, what do they mean? So far as I have been able to determine, nothing.
You’ll read a lot about how great it is to have organized notes. At least one person (Luhmann), but maybe two (if you count the claims of the author of this book) really benefited from having a “note box” or Zettelkasten.
You’ll learn really cool things like “Zettalkästen” is the plural of Zettalkasten.
In the start of the book, you’ll be told, point-blank, that if you want to skip all the theoretical horse…uh…manure, you can go to a certain chapter, and then another chapter, and come back and read all the theoretical b.s. after that.
So far as I can tell, those chapters to which I have been directed are also b.s. They certainly don’t seem to provide the promised instructions on “how to skip the theory and get started.”
This will be my third, and, most likely, my last, book on the so-called Zettalkasten Promise. I have no doubt that it CAN work. After all, it worked for Luhmann. And it helped produce this book of b.s., allegedly.
As they say on the Internet (which the Antinet allegedly appears in contradistinction to), YMMV.
For me? It was just more evidence that Luhmann was a genius, who had a particular organizational scheme that worked for him. And, unless you’re Luhmann, good luck figuring out how to make it work for you.
But, what do they mean? So far as I have been able to determine, nothing.
You’ll read a lot about how great it is to have organized notes. At least one person (Luhmann), but maybe two (if you count the claims of the author of this book) really benefited from having a “note box” or Zettelkasten.
You’ll learn really cool things like “Zettalkästen” is the plural of Zettalkasten.
In the start of the book, you’ll be told, point-blank, that if you want to skip all the theoretical horse…uh…manure, you can go to a certain chapter, and then another chapter, and come back and read all the theoretical b.s. after that.
So far as I can tell, those chapters to which I have been directed are also b.s. They certainly don’t seem to provide the promised instructions on “how to skip the theory and get started.”
This will be my third, and, most likely, my last, book on the so-called Zettalkasten Promise. I have no doubt that it CAN work. After all, it worked for Luhmann. And it helped produce this book of b.s., allegedly.
As they say on the Internet (which the Antinet allegedly appears in contradistinction to), YMMV.
For me? It was just more evidence that Luhmann was a genius, who had a particular organizational scheme that worked for him. And, unless you’re Luhmann, good luck figuring out how to make it work for you.
December 10, 2023
Ideas are great but I found reading the book a bit tedious. There is too much text and the author doesn’t get to point soon enough. The book could have been edited out and condensed to 200 pages, instead of a 500 pg behemoth.
Still the author succeeded in convincing me that Antinet is better than digital zettelkasten. I think I am going to give the analog version a try soon.
Still the author succeeded in convincing me that Antinet is better than digital zettelkasten. I think I am going to give the analog version a try soon.
August 20, 2024
This has been the single most impactful read for me this year.
I have been trying and trying to get a zettelkasten going but I could never make it work. I invested dozens of hours watching youtube on how to do it in Roam Research, then Notion, Then Obsidian.
When this book arrived, I read the introduction and some much of the author's journey resonated deeply with my own.
The next thing I know, I am skipping from the back of the book to the front of the book at the author's behest so I can get immediate traction. It literally holds your hand and says do this, then this, then this. And you finish and you have a Zettelkasten.
Having followed the author very closely for more than a year now and having read or watch nearly 100% of his content, here are three things I have come to know:
1. The author - and by extension, his material - are easy to underestimate. This is NOT your younger brother's "How To Take Smart Notes". The depth of this material is easy to gloss over. Until you try it.
2. Following on point #1 - There are lots of cook books with lots of recipes. This book is the one that you get to taste the results rather than attempting to smell the pictures. When I tried to build a zettelkasten online, I felt like everyone had a different definition for what a fleeting notes was or what a lit note was or what a permanent note was. So much subjectivity. This book made the entire process both more objective and more prescriptive (Just cook it like the recipe says, then explore variations). Did I mention how much I love the smell of fresh banana bread? That's the feeling I had when I read this book for an hour. It simplified. It clarified. It had an answer for all my objections. And the answers were not, "Just do what feels good..." They were logical, well thought out, WWLD!!! (What Would Luhmann Do).
3. The most critical and yet subtle thing I learned from reading the ANTINET was the one that smacked me in the face like a defrosted ribeye. It was this: I was a glutton. I ate and ate and ate and ate. I ate books, I ate courses, I ate youtube videos. But I never contributed. I never burned any of those knowledge calories. My mind looked like one of those folks on "my 600 pound life". Scott's book pushed and challenged me to get off my intellectual ass and contribute. Write. I had not written much beyond emails and business copy. Now - and I cannot over state this - I am writing an actual book as a direct result of the impact this book has had on my thinking about knowledge work.
This is a book I will read every couple years for the rest of my life. I buy extra copies now and then just to give to the few people I know who might be ready to read it.
I have been trying and trying to get a zettelkasten going but I could never make it work. I invested dozens of hours watching youtube on how to do it in Roam Research, then Notion, Then Obsidian.
When this book arrived, I read the introduction and some much of the author's journey resonated deeply with my own.
The next thing I know, I am skipping from the back of the book to the front of the book at the author's behest so I can get immediate traction. It literally holds your hand and says do this, then this, then this. And you finish and you have a Zettelkasten.
Having followed the author very closely for more than a year now and having read or watch nearly 100% of his content, here are three things I have come to know:
1. The author - and by extension, his material - are easy to underestimate. This is NOT your younger brother's "How To Take Smart Notes". The depth of this material is easy to gloss over. Until you try it.
2. Following on point #1 - There are lots of cook books with lots of recipes. This book is the one that you get to taste the results rather than attempting to smell the pictures. When I tried to build a zettelkasten online, I felt like everyone had a different definition for what a fleeting notes was or what a lit note was or what a permanent note was. So much subjectivity. This book made the entire process both more objective and more prescriptive (Just cook it like the recipe says, then explore variations). Did I mention how much I love the smell of fresh banana bread? That's the feeling I had when I read this book for an hour. It simplified. It clarified. It had an answer for all my objections. And the answers were not, "Just do what feels good..." They were logical, well thought out, WWLD!!! (What Would Luhmann Do).
3. The most critical and yet subtle thing I learned from reading the ANTINET was the one that smacked me in the face like a defrosted ribeye. It was this: I was a glutton. I ate and ate and ate and ate. I ate books, I ate courses, I ate youtube videos. But I never contributed. I never burned any of those knowledge calories. My mind looked like one of those folks on "my 600 pound life". Scott's book pushed and challenged me to get off my intellectual ass and contribute. Write. I had not written much beyond emails and business copy. Now - and I cannot over state this - I am writing an actual book as a direct result of the impact this book has had on my thinking about knowledge work.
This is a book I will read every couple years for the rest of my life. I buy extra copies now and then just to give to the few people I know who might be ready to read it.
August 4, 2024
Scheper's book is a passionate illustration of the power of Luhmann's Zettelkasten system of knowledge management. The bare-bones of this system involve the curation of a network of index cards that service the relational aspects of multi-discipline knowledge organization. You have your atomic main note cards containing a single aspect of information. You also have lots of cards that act as a method of organizing these thoughts. The interconnectedness is the key.
Scheper really needed an editor. I found myself skipping large swaths of pages because I had read the same thing over and over. And, not in the good way. This book makes more sense as a reference guide because you can get the whole concept by picking out a chapter of relevance.
I wish Scheper would publish a leaner version of this book with only the essentials (like not doubling any information). Then, allowing people to dive deeper in the full version of the book. But, at the VERY inexpensive price this book is, it's worth reading the whole thing cover-to-cover to learn this system.
Luhmann's system is MAGICAL. It will change your life. You will become a much wiser, prolific, and profound author from using it. Get this book and deal with its weaknesses. Do NOT buy into the digital Zettelkasten hype. It will not work, I promise.
Scheper really needed an editor. I found myself skipping large swaths of pages because I had read the same thing over and over. And, not in the good way. This book makes more sense as a reference guide because you can get the whole concept by picking out a chapter of relevance.
I wish Scheper would publish a leaner version of this book with only the essentials (like not doubling any information). Then, allowing people to dive deeper in the full version of the book. But, at the VERY inexpensive price this book is, it's worth reading the whole thing cover-to-cover to learn this system.
Luhmann's system is MAGICAL. It will change your life. You will become a much wiser, prolific, and profound author from using it. Get this book and deal with its weaknesses. Do NOT buy into the digital Zettelkasten hype. It will not work, I promise.
July 23, 2024
He rambles and repeats himself a lot. If you read 200 out of the 600 pages then you know everything you need to know.
Nonetheless, I loved learning about this and understanding how it was supposed to work.
Now I can delete obsidian, which I didn't even like in the first place.
August 6, 2024
A kernel of useful advice and practice buried in Scheper's bloviating prose filler: artless, self-important, frustrating.
Avoid.
Avoid.
August 19, 2024
I don’t want to ever finish this book; its usefulness is very simple…
I read, study, and research. I wanted an effective way of organizing which would facilitate comprehension.
This well written and readable book helped me begin my own journey with Zettelkasten. Scott’s comprehension of, and experience with, Zettlekasten is communicated effectively in a very readable book.
Usually a tome reaching for the magnitude Scott’s book reaches for can be mind numbingly dull. I was pleasantly surprised to find this book a joy to read and learn from.
I read, study, and research. I wanted an effective way of organizing which would facilitate comprehension.
This well written and readable book helped me begin my own journey with Zettelkasten. Scott’s comprehension of, and experience with, Zettlekasten is communicated effectively in a very readable book.
Usually a tome reaching for the magnitude Scott’s book reaches for can be mind numbingly dull. I was pleasantly surprised to find this book a joy to read and learn from.
April 21, 2024
It wasn't until Chapter 18 of Scott Scheper's book on the Antinet Zettelkasten system that the concept of the "second mind", as manifested in a box (or filing cabinet) of notecards, finally took root. Throughout the book, he refers back to Mortimer Adler's classic How To Read A Book, which is mostly about using certain types of nonfiction books as an "absent teacher". But during his late-in-the-text unpacking of the second brain concept Scheper brings up Adler's thoughts on how when you ask the book a question, you're tasked with finding the answer yourself. And somehow that was the tipping point: when assembled over the course of several years (and making an Antinet is intended to be a long-term project), the absent teacher that makes up the "ghost in the box" is you, or more to the point, previous versions of you. One of the ultimate goals is the piece of you in the note box teaching yourself how to reunderstand your old thoughts in the light of what you learned afterwards. That's the "communications partner" aspect of the Zettelkasten concept: calling forth another part of yourself, arguing with your old ideas and biases, and developing something new from the process. At least that's the theory. It's still early days, so fingers crossed.
As for doing it on slips of paper instead of on your phone? I've tried digital notetaking, and I don't trust myself with it. Everything that's gone into Evernote over the past decade is strictly out of sight, out of mind. Digital does a number on me, and if that sounds like you too, this pen-and-paper-card system is worth a test drive.
Anyway, that's the concept, which I'm very hopeful for, and there's a lot of science explaining the method that I'm leaving out. As for the book, my main issue is what I'm seeing from a lot of other reviews: it is looooong. There is a lot of theory explained at length, and the author keeps circling back to certain concepts and phrasing, which might be good for imprinting those ideas, but once you notice that's what's happening you start seeing it everywhere. I think a pared-back version of what's in here might be a best seller.
As for doing it on slips of paper instead of on your phone? I've tried digital notetaking, and I don't trust myself with it. Everything that's gone into Evernote over the past decade is strictly out of sight, out of mind. Digital does a number on me, and if that sounds like you too, this pen-and-paper-card system is worth a test drive.
Anyway, that's the concept, which I'm very hopeful for, and there's a lot of science explaining the method that I'm leaving out. As for the book, my main issue is what I'm seeing from a lot of other reviews: it is looooong. There is a lot of theory explained at length, and the author keeps circling back to certain concepts and phrasing, which might be good for imprinting those ideas, but once you notice that's what's happening you start seeing it everywhere. I think a pared-back version of what's in here might be a best seller.
December 7, 2024
I am old enough to have used notecards for writing research papers (over forty years ago). I never used them outside of school. But in recent years, I have taken to writing notes on what I read, filling notebook after notebook. The problem . . . how to refer back to those notes months or years later. I started thinking about the notecards I used as a student, but had trouble figuring out how to organize them. This book offers what I think will be a useful technique.
The problem: it could easily have been a lot shorter. The system is not really that difficult. It probably could be explained in a forty-page pamphlet. For someone who is already convinced of the value of handwritten notes, and analog systems, it is all a bit much. (The author does get points for citing Mortimer Adler (one of my intellectual heroes) (although Mr. Scheper might get more points if he gave an indication that he read more than one of Mr. Adler's books)).
Be aware of one thing, though . . . if you buy this book, you will be subject to a barrage of marketing e-mails from Mr. Scheper, offering his newsletter, his online seminar, etc., etc., etc. . . . it is deeply annoying.
The problem: it could easily have been a lot shorter. The system is not really that difficult. It probably could be explained in a forty-page pamphlet. For someone who is already convinced of the value of handwritten notes, and analog systems, it is all a bit much. (The author does get points for citing Mortimer Adler (one of my intellectual heroes) (although Mr. Scheper might get more points if he gave an indication that he read more than one of Mr. Adler's books)).
Be aware of one thing, though . . . if you buy this book, you will be subject to a barrage of marketing e-mails from Mr. Scheper, offering his newsletter, his online seminar, etc., etc., etc. . . . it is deeply annoying.
August 19, 2024
Is your purpose to read and collect, or is it to write? I've read Sonke, Forte, and Doto; they are all fine books with their own takes on Zettlekasten methodology. But the Antinet Zettlekasten is about doing, not consuming/collecting. I enjoyed the book, and it morphs into an excellent user's manual for turning your notes into a product. Every digital "system" & tool I've encountered and implemented so far does not come close to the productivity I experience using the Antinet.
This book is not literature; it is a well sourced and well researched extension of the Niklas Luhmann method written with a mind geared to the production of books, articles, and research. ( This is a direct answer to the snobby NY Times reviewer wannabes on this platform. )
This book is easy to read, easy to refer back to, and most of all, inspiring to the people who want to write but have struggled with their modern, digital systems to achieve their goals.
This book is not literature; it is a well sourced and well researched extension of the Niklas Luhmann method written with a mind geared to the production of books, articles, and research. ( This is a direct answer to the snobby NY Times reviewer wannabes on this platform. )
This book is easy to read, easy to refer back to, and most of all, inspiring to the people who want to write but have struggled with their modern, digital systems to achieve their goals.
February 22, 2025
Technically, the best book on Zettelkasten available. There is a lot of great material in it but this hindered by the author’s constant rambling, repetition of already known facts and very unprofessional criticism towards Sönke Ahrens, which while probably holds true for the most part, is unnecessarily sharp.
Scheper has, however, certainly done his homework and a good amount of research seems to haven gone into this book. This is why, despite it quirks, I ultimately recommend this book. It has convinced me to start and analog Zettelkasten and the journey has been great so far.
One suggestion to the author: since you constantly highlight the importance of the index for Luhmann, I highly suggest you add an index to your book as well so people can easily refer back to passages when they are unsure about certain concepts! That way you don’t have to flip through all pages just to find the explanation you are looking for :-)
Scheper has, however, certainly done his homework and a good amount of research seems to haven gone into this book. This is why, despite it quirks, I ultimately recommend this book. It has convinced me to start and analog Zettelkasten and the journey has been great so far.
One suggestion to the author: since you constantly highlight the importance of the index for Luhmann, I highly suggest you add an index to your book as well so people can easily refer back to passages when they are unsure about certain concepts! That way you don’t have to flip through all pages just to find the explanation you are looking for :-)
July 7, 2024
Aspectos positivos:
A diferencia de Ahrens explica con mucho detalle y bastantes ejemplos. Complementa sus afirmaciones con "algo" de evidencia científica. El autor predica lo que practica. Es fácil y rápido de leer.
Aspectos negativos:
Algunas promesas se sienten como "aceite de serpiente", i.e., promete más de lo que un método para tomar notas y desarrollar conocimiento puede ofrecer. Muestra una postura demasiado odiosa contra lo digital. Incluye mucho relleno en forma de historias personales o datos biográficos de él u otras personas.
A diferencia de Ahrens explica con mucho detalle y bastantes ejemplos. Complementa sus afirmaciones con "algo" de evidencia científica. El autor predica lo que practica. Es fácil y rápido de leer.
Aspectos negativos:
Algunas promesas se sienten como "aceite de serpiente", i.e., promete más de lo que un método para tomar notas y desarrollar conocimiento puede ofrecer. Muestra una postura demasiado odiosa contra lo digital. Incluye mucho relleno en forma de historias personales o datos biográficos de él u otras personas.
January 6, 2023
Dedicated to cards and pen
I disagree with the perspective taken by this author and find some of his justifications flawed. Still, I found value in reinterpretations many of his suggestions based on principles from cognitive science. The author suggests that dealing with challenges and contradictions can be useful and I agree.
I disagree with the perspective taken by this author and find some of his justifications flawed. Still, I found value in reinterpretations many of his suggestions based on principles from cognitive science. The author suggests that dealing with challenges and contradictions can be useful and I agree.
December 31, 2022
Amazing book.
If you want to learn Zettelkasten, then first read this book. It will prevent you from a lot of headaches because of misinformation in other books (How to Take Smart Notes) and on the internet. Scott Scheper has done a wonderful job.
If you want to learn Zettelkasten, then first read this book. It will prevent you from a lot of headaches because of misinformation in other books (How to Take Smart Notes) and on the internet. Scott Scheper has done a wonderful job.
August 6, 2024
A kernel of useful advice and practice buried in Scheper's bloviating prose filler: artless, self-important, frustrating.
Avoid.
Avoid.
August 6, 2025
thorough examination and how-to of a Zettlecast system. this is a fascinating way of taking notes and managing/creating knowledge in a totally analog way. the nature of writing the notes on notecards, giving them an alpha numeric address,the other evolution of the tree like structure and linking between cards mirrors how our understanding of human memory works, through association and spatial properties and the act of writing down the note. the best way to learn something is to learn it to teach it, and this system is great for that, for creating new reformulations of knowledge you've ingested and discovering links between discrete bits of information. I would have given this 5 stars but for the author's reference to Jordan Peterson in a couple of spots and one mention about how Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged held wisdom. ick.
January 17, 2025
I have quite conflicting opinion on this book.
There are a lot of interesting paragraphs and observations but overall there is a continuous controversy against the digital zettelkasten.
At the end we are in front of a religion (zettelkasten and note taking) with its priest that fight against each other how to interpret the prophet and this is the disturbing thing.
Zettelkasten or PKM should enable people to get the most from their notes and should pass the message that every method is good, provided that it is suitable for your specific need. Unfortunately the book is on the total opposite and this is what I didn't like and on the overall worsened the final result. Bob Doto on this has a totally different and free approach that i prefer quite much.
Given this, if you are in PKM or Zettelkasten and you can live with the attitude of the author, this books would stands out for the content.
There are a lot of interesting paragraphs and observations but overall there is a continuous controversy against the digital zettelkasten.
At the end we are in front of a religion (zettelkasten and note taking) with its priest that fight against each other how to interpret the prophet and this is the disturbing thing.
Zettelkasten or PKM should enable people to get the most from their notes and should pass the message that every method is good, provided that it is suitable for your specific need. Unfortunately the book is on the total opposite and this is what I didn't like and on the overall worsened the final result. Bob Doto on this has a totally different and free approach that i prefer quite much.
Given this, if you are in PKM or Zettelkasten and you can live with the attitude of the author, this books would stands out for the content.
September 2, 2024
Wish I’d known about this in law school! I am eagerly awaiting the revelation of techniques that will reignite the creativity and thirst for knowledge I had before life got in my way!
Scott is entertaining, funny, and a great inspiration.
Scott is entertaining, funny, and a great inspiration.
November 25, 2025
Way too long but the zettelkasten is sweet
December 28, 2022
It feels like the author 'collected' a lot of notes from a lot of research and without prioritising or editing, dumped everything into a book. The whole book is a stretch plus the righteous blabber does not help much. I would agree that the author has some great insights and probably did some good to explain Zettelkasten as a purist but it all got wasted into a bad book.
December 19, 2024
It is an unbearable and not at all recommendable read. 90% of the text is superfluous, both due to repetition and completely irrelevant information. The repetition borders on torture and is detrimental to comprehension, not to mention a moderately pleasant reading experience. The comparisons with other authors and constant evangelization are unnecessary. There are arguments that make no sense and do not prove the premise, examples that are irrelevant, and in general, the graphical contributions are useless.
It is a textbook example of how not to use the Zettelkasten method for writing. Finding relationships between ideas and combining them is great, but you can't make a chapter for each idea and include the same references over and over again. The text needs to be edited, if only out of respect for the reader's time.
Special mention goes to the ridiculous and tiresome technique of previewing the wonders that await the reader if they continue reading. "But we'll see this in later chapters." It's a snake oil salesman technique, and if it's overused, it borders on insulting the reader's intelligence.
Run away if you still have the chance.
It is a textbook example of how not to use the Zettelkasten method for writing. Finding relationships between ideas and combining them is great, but you can't make a chapter for each idea and include the same references over and over again. The text needs to be edited, if only out of respect for the reader's time.
Special mention goes to the ridiculous and tiresome technique of previewing the wonders that await the reader if they continue reading. "But we'll see this in later chapters." It's a snake oil salesman technique, and if it's overused, it borders on insulting the reader's intelligence.
Run away if you still have the chance.
February 7, 2025
This book is 590 pages long and begins on page 323. (The author actually admits this.) And the next 267 pages need an unforgiving editor.
But, I should have known.
The hard sell, the up-selling tactics, the repetition, the long-winded video, and the sheer onslaught of the written word that are used in the Facebook ad were all billowing red flags.
Save yourself 15 bucks and do an internet search on what a zettelkasten is and how it works.
There may actually be useful information in the book, but I wouldn't know. I couldn't manage to slog my way through the muck to uncover it.
But, I should have known.
The hard sell, the up-selling tactics, the repetition, the long-winded video, and the sheer onslaught of the written word that are used in the Facebook ad were all billowing red flags.
Save yourself 15 bucks and do an internet search on what a zettelkasten is and how it works.
There may actually be useful information in the book, but I wouldn't know. I couldn't manage to slog my way through the muck to uncover it.
December 30, 2022
Excellent Deep Dive into Note Taking
The author takes an interesting approach to detailing the difference between analog and digital note taking systems. Along the way, he points out the problems with digital note taking and the cultish hype surrounding it.
I could see his use of his Antinet in is writing. Information was written in clusters of thought, using blocks of information that I’m assuming came from his note cards. The result was positive and interesting.
The author takes an interesting approach to detailing the difference between analog and digital note taking systems. Along the way, he points out the problems with digital note taking and the cultish hype surrounding it.
I could see his use of his Antinet in is writing. Information was written in clusters of thought, using blocks of information that I’m assuming came from his note cards. The result was positive and interesting.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 89 reviews