I just got the RTK book and was planning on learning kanji through it, but I hear that its not as benificial in the long run and WK is simply just better in general. Should I just do RTK as basic understanding then go to WK??
I did RTK all the way through a decade ago and I’m stubborn, so when I restarted studying a year ago, I essentially started using RTK with WK. The keywords for the kanji and especially the radicals are not the same, so if you’re going to go this route it’s a bit more difficult. I add the RTK keywords to those in WK (and add the WK keywords to my RTK Anki deck), so that it accepts either, and WK radicals I skip entirely – I literally put an alternative definition of “skip” for each radical.
If you’re going to go this route, I’d also suggest using the WK deck in Anki instead of WK itself. You would already have a good grounding for the kanji, so adding just the readings and vocabulary won’t be as difficult, and you’ll probably want to go at a faster pace.
Absolutely do not do both, that’s a massive waste of time.
I have no experience of WaniKani, but RTK + Anki worked really well for me. Having a paper book, pen and paper to sit down with, with no distractions, really helped me to focus.
Just make sure you spend some time learning how to set up Anki first, so that every time you fail a card you don’t go back to zero. Learning to read the Kanji is much quicker than learning to write, so have the kanji on the front and the keyword on the back.
Have fun.
They each have their advantages:
RTK: Faster, cheaper, better breakdown of kanji into radicals, better collection of community mnemnonics (Reviewing the Kanji), teaches writing instead of just recognition, covers all joyo kanji.
WK: Teaches kanji, readings, and vocabulary in a much more systematic and integrated way. You learn to read actual words and instead of just recognizing kanji.
RTK does try to tackle readings in the second volume, but not in a way that works for many people. Most skip this and learn readings elsewhere.
Sadly, while the strengths and weaknesses compliment each other well, it’s hard to study both, because they give things different names, break down kanji differently, and sometimes even give the same nickname to different radicals from each other (table, head, etc.) If you try to do both, duplicated effort and getting mnemonics jumbled are real concerns.
4 comments
I did RTK all the way through a decade ago and I’m stubborn, so when I restarted studying a year ago, I essentially started using RTK with WK. The keywords for the kanji and especially the radicals are not the same, so if you’re going to go this route it’s a bit more difficult. I add the RTK keywords to those in WK (and add the WK keywords to my RTK Anki deck), so that it accepts either, and WK radicals I skip entirely – I literally put an alternative definition of “skip” for each radical.
If you’re going to go this route, I’d also suggest using the WK deck in Anki instead of WK itself. You would already have a good grounding for the kanji, so adding just the readings and vocabulary won’t be as difficult, and you’ll probably want to go at a faster pace.
Absolutely do not do both, that’s a massive waste of time.
I have no experience of WaniKani, but RTK + Anki worked really well for me. Having a paper book, pen and paper to sit down with, with no distractions, really helped me to focus.
Just make sure you spend some time learning how to set up Anki first, so that every time you fail a card you don’t go back to zero. Learning to read the Kanji is much quicker than learning to write, so have the kanji on the front and the keyword on the back.
Have fun.
They each have their advantages:
RTK: Faster, cheaper, better breakdown of kanji into radicals, better collection of community mnemnonics (Reviewing the Kanji), teaches writing instead of just recognition, covers all joyo kanji.
WK: Teaches kanji, readings, and vocabulary in a much more systematic and integrated way. You learn to read actual words and instead of just recognizing kanji.
RTK does try to tackle readings in the second volume, but not in a way that works for many people. Most skip this and learn readings elsewhere.
Sadly, while the strengths and weaknesses compliment each other well, it’s hard to study both, because they give things different names, break down kanji differently, and sometimes even give the same nickname to different radicals from each other (table, head, etc.) If you try to do both, duplicated effort and getting mnemonics jumbled are real concerns.