Do I Have to Write Notes to a Handout I Already understand When I?

Do I have to write notes to a handout I already understand when I read it? In English, the key points, we have to understand in an exam, are on the PDF, but I think, I spend too much time on writing notes to it even through it isn't that complex

I* do! Perhaps I annotate in a slightly idiosyncratic manner, but this just has to do with how I read about history in general. For starters, it is probably worth noting that I read an obscene number of books at once; I probably am a respectable ways through dozens of history books alone right now. I do prefer reading this way, since I have an infinitesimal attention span, disparate interests, and an obsessive tendency to follow the citation trail. Thus, I annotate mainly to keep important pieces of information at the front of my very cluttered mind. The way that I annotate is pretty specific. I suppose that anyone reading about this will glean a little bit of insight into my thought process. With respect to history books and papers, I highlight four kinds of information (in different colors, of course). Passages that contain key ideas central to an author's argument and perspective as t relate to the historical evidence presented. Passages that I would not mind reading over and over again. T are thus either particularly convincing, insightful, or articulate - or difficult to understand. However, I rarely find myself struggling to conceptualize and reason through the ideas presented in historical studies, so the latter is not usually the case. Citations of books and papers that I must read later (as in, books and papers that I intend to read later but which I will actually never get around to reading later). Passages that contain trivia! Every history book has some good trivia, like fun quotes or weird facts, that I wish to dedicate a wrinkle of my brain to. To illustrate, here's a curious line about the strict constructionist views of Franklin Pierce that I highlighted. from Blackwell's Companion to the Antebellum Presidents, 1837–1861(ed. Sibley 2014) However, I rarely highlight easily verifiable facts about events and dates, of the sort that might be on a Wikipedia page. If I ever need to know such information, I can easily just do a Google search; I am more concerned about the interpretation of events. After reading about something time and time again, basic facts tend to stick in my brain anyway. Of course, I write verbal comments when I read as well. These are generally either. Comments of an inquisitive nature, that either challenge or clarify an author's discussion of a subject. Questions, my opinions on a passage, and connections between one thing that I'm reading and another are of this sort. Sometimes, if I have enough substantive thoughts about a particular work, I create a page in my Note phone to map them out. My notes look less like this. than like this (scribbles I wrote ‘studying’ for the AP World exam last year. Comments of a jocular nature. I must confess that I do view history with a bit of a tongue-in-cheek attitude (which is why I can stand to write about it on Quora, I suppose), much like the teens who post to r/HistoryMemes or the historians who chuckle about their craft on Twitter. Or, (quite a bit less humbly), like Basquiat. Bishop I mean…..am I wrong? commentary on Catiline (Levick 2015) *This has been in my drafts since you asked this question! I didn't even know you then, John Oparinde! For some reason, I never got around to hitting ‘submit'.