Books to read before you die

"Derek Broughton" <news.TakeThisOut@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:1801773.tN0X3bn7Qq@cedar.serverforest.com...

> (Margaret Atwood always argues that /The Handmaid's Tale/ isn't Science
> Fiction, too);

Well, future science is in no way a theme in her book and
I don't remember any science at all. The Handmaid's Tale
is a political fable much like Sinclair Lewis's It Can't Happen
Here. If a genre, this must rank a notch higher than science
fiction. It postulates no future science or technolgy as the
reason for events (the reason why people act badly) -- only
the same material, social and psychological motives that
operate today.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

Don Phillipson wrote:

> "Derek Broughton" <news DeleteThis @pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> news:1801773.tN0X3bn7Qq@cedar.serverforest.com...
>
>> (Margaret Atwood always argues that /The Handmaid's Tale/ isn't Science
>> Fiction, too);
>
> Well, future science is in no way a theme in her book and
> I don't remember any science at all.

Of course. You've apparently been listening to her . However, her novel
doesn't differ in any significant way from any other future dystopia that
gets lumped into the science fiction genre.
--
derek
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

On Dec 5, 8:55 pm, David Librik <lib... RemoveThis @panix.com> wrote:

> Philip Pullman should never be allowed to talk about his own books
> because he makes them sound much worse than they are. The "Golden
> Compass" he actually wrote is inspired, unlike the one you'd think
> he intended to write if you listen to him. I'd recommend the real
> thing unreservedly; it's a top-notch children's fantasy novel.

This may be the most insightful and accurate thing I've read about
Pullman since this whole movie debacle started.
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

In message <news:m1fcl357cspmu7r3l0ou30da7i983e56mu@4ax.com>
Steve Hayes <hayesmstw.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> spoke these staves:
>
> British librarians have compiled a list of 30 books to read before
> you die.

Interesting list.

The English-speaking bias is obvious -- I would, for instance, list
some of Astrid Lindgren's children's literature (e.g. /The Brothers
Lionheart/) above both Milne and Pullman. And of course any Danish
librarian's list would include some Hans Christian Andersen as well
as, probably, some Kierkegaard -- at least (I might come up with more
Danish authors that Danes ought to read before they die <G>).

In connection to that, it made me wonder to find no Shakespeare or
Chaucer on the list.

> It has some strange inclusions, and some strange omissions.
>
> One of the inclusions is "Lord of the Rings".
>
> Well, no surprise there.



I wouldn't be surprised to find that also on a similar Danish list.

<snip>

> None of C.S. Lewis's stories made the list,

I've only ever read the Narnia books, but I wasn't really impressed
by them. By all means, they're an enjoyable read and all that, but
that is, as you note, not a sufficient requirement to make a "must
read" list.

> perhaps because Pullman denounced them as "preachy", though
> "His dark materials" is just as preachy, if not more so.

Indeed.

I'm a bit curious about the word "preachy" here. It seems to carry a
strongly negative connotation that goes beyond simply the "agitating
for an obvious agenda" that the word itself implies, but often I get
the impression that the use of the word is very subjective: that it
really means "agitating for an obvious agenda, *which /I/ don't
like*."

One might ask whether the obvious agitation for some agenda is
necessarily bad for a book? But if it is not, in itself, bad, how,
then, do we distinguish between that which is bad and that which is
not? Both Lewis and Pullman, in my subjective view, at times allowed
their personal agenda to overrule literary concerns, and in both
cases the book suffered from it, but I wouldn't like to attempt to
put that into an objective metric.

> I wonder if the releace of the film "The golden compass" had
> anything to do with the librarians' choice.

Given that the Potter books, which finished this summer, hasn't made
it to the list, I don't really think that popularity has had that
much importance.

But if that is the case, one can only bemoan that Beowulf didn't make
it on the list as well (surely it is available in mordernised form in
English?)

> Actually, I'd rate the Harry Potter books above Pullman's ones,
> although I wouldn't say that they were ones you ought to read
> before you die.

I'd put the Potter books above Pullman's for simple entertainment and
excitement value and for scope of sub-creation, but technically (in
terms such as e.g. plot holes, internal consistency and use of
language) and in terms of importance[#] I would put His Dark
Materials above the Potter books.

[#] I'm lacking a better word to convey the sense of having an agenda
that ought to be important -- of raising a an important discussion,
even if the solution offered is wide off the mark.

<snip>

> How many have you read, and can you think of better choices?

Meaning "read" as in really read, I don't think I've read more than a
handful besides LotR: the Bible, /A Clockwork Orange/, /Winnie the
Pooh/, /All Quiet on the Western Front/ and /The Wind in the Willows/
(except /A Clockwork Orange/, I've read them in Danish).

My own list would probably reflect that I'm Danish, including more
Danish authors than any non-Dane would

Apart from that my list would probably have a rather higher average
age -- a saga, some myths and legends (Norse, Greek, Roman, Indian,
Chinese, Finnish, Russian . . . I don't know for sure) and some
other books with more than a couple of hundred years behind them.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.
- /Hogfather/ (Terry Pratchett)
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

Troels Forchhammer wrote:

> In message <news:m1fcl357cspmu7r3l0ou30da7i983e56mu@4ax.com>
> Steve Hayes <hayesmstw RemoveThis @hotmail.com> spoke these staves:

> In connection to that, it made me wonder to find no Shakespeare or
> Chaucer on the list.

I imagine that depends heavily on the "translation". I wonder if Chaucer in
its original might be as intelligible to a Dane as to the English. Every
English reader probably _should_ try to read some Chaucer, but not in the
original.

> I'm a bit curious about the word "preachy" here. It seems to carry a
> strongly negative connotation that goes beyond simply the "agitating
> for an obvious agenda" that the word itself implies, but often I get
> the impression that the use of the word is very subjective: that it
> really means "agitating for an obvious agenda, *which /I/ don't
> like*."

That would be the common usage - and my take on Pullman's feelings about
Lewis was exactly like that.
>
>> I wonder if the releace of the film "The golden compass" had
>> anything to do with the librarians' choice.
>
> Given that the Potter books, which finished this summer, hasn't made
> it to the list, I don't really think that popularity has had that
> much importance.

It's not so much about popularity, as controversy. At least in the US, some
weighty lobby groups have called for it to be banned - there's nothing like
a good banning to get the Librarians agitated

> My own list would probably reflect that I'm Danish, including more
> Danish authors than any non-Dane would

Well, one of the commenters on Steve's blog voted for /Smila's Sense of
Snow/ by Hoeg (actually, that wasn't the title he used, but it's the title
of the translation I read). That's worth putting on the list.
--
derek
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

Derek Broughton wrote:

> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>
>
>>In message <news:m1fcl357cspmu7r3l0ou30da7i983e56mu@4ax.com>
>>Steve Hayes <hayesmstw DeleteThis @hotmail.com> spoke these staves:
>
>
>>In connection to that, it made me wonder to find no Shakespeare or
>>Chaucer on the list.
>
>
> I imagine that depends heavily on the "translation". I wonder if Chaucer in
> its original might be as intelligible to a Dane as to the English. Every
> English reader probably _should_ try to read some Chaucer, but not in the
> original.


Actually, if it is read aloud, it makes much more sense.



Francis A. Miniter
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

Derek Broughton wrote:

> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>
>
>>In message <news:m1fcl357cspmu7r3l0ou30da7i983e56mu@4ax.com>
>>Steve Hayes <hayesmstw.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> spoke these staves:
>
>
>>In connection to that, it made me wonder to find no Shakespeare or
>>Chaucer on the list.
>
>
> I imagine that depends heavily on the "translation". I wonder if Chaucer in
> its original might be as intelligible to a Dane as to the English. Every
> English reader probably _should_ try to read some Chaucer, but not in the
> original.
>
>

Chaucer is Middle English and much closer to Modern English. But Beowulf, now,
that is Old English (at best) and would probably be much more accessible in
Danish. Of course, the character set takes a little practice.


Francis A. Miniter
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

Steve Hayes wrote:

> British librarians have compiled a list of 30 books to read before you die.
>
> It has some strange inclusions, and some strange omissions.
>
> One of the inclusions is "Lord of the Rings".
>
> Well, no surprise there.
>
> But they also include Philip Pullman's "His dark materials" trilogy.
>
> I've read them twice, and found them quite enjoyable, though they had some
> flaws. But I certainly wouldn't include them among the 30 books to read before
> you die.
>
> What about "Alice's adventured in Wonderland", which they omitted?
>
> That is far better literature, and far more important to read.
>
> And, as children's stories go, Alan Garner's books are far, far better than
> Pullman's, though they also didn't make the list.
>
> None of C.S. Lewis's stories made the list, perhaps because Pullman denounced
> them as "preachy", though "His dark materials" is just as preachy, if not more
> so.
>
> I wonder if the releace of the film "The golden compass" had anything to do
> with the librarians' choice.
>
> Actually, I'd rate the Harry Potter books above Pullman's ones, although I
> wouldn't say that they were ones you ought to read before you die.
>
>
> Other strange choices:
>
> "The master and Margarita" by Bulgakov, but no Dostoevsky. And again, "Alice's
> adventures in Wonderland" is much better as fantasy.
>
> I've read 19 of the 30 listed in my blog below:
>
> http://methodius.blogspot.com/2007/12/books-to-read-before-you-die.html
>
> How many have you read, and can you think of better choices?
>
>

So, they are definitely classifying the Bible as fiction.

The list is highly Anglo-centric, but not a single Scot (or Irishman) among
them. Surely, Ivanhoe by Scott, or anything by Stevenson, could have made the
list. No mention of any of the following: Victor Hugo, Dumas, pere, Balzac,
Stendhal, Umberto Eco, Boccaccio, Thomas Mann, Leo Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Mikhail
Sholokhov, Cervantes, Gabriel Garcia Marques, Jose Donoso, Mario Vargas Llosa,
Manuel Puig, Kobo Abe, Mishima, Eiji Yoshikawa, The Bhagavad Gita, Salman
Rushdie, The Thousand Nights and A Night, James Joyce, Samuel Beckett, George
Bernard Shaw, Herman Melville, Mark Twain, F. Scott Fitzgerald (How could Gatsby
not make the list?), Peter Mathiessen's At Play in the Fields of the Lord,
Margaret Atwood (I noticed others have mentioned her - I think her Toronto
novels are far superior to The Handmaid's Tale).

And many that were mentioned are down-right second-rate. And the book choice
for Vonnegut left me wondering. Why not Slaughterhouse-Five or Mother Night?


Francis A. Miniter
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

Derek Broughton <news.DeleteThis@pointerstop.ca> writes:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> But they also include Philip Pullman's "His dark materials" trilogy.
>>
>I just put them on hold from the library, because of an interview I heard
>with him last week on CBC Radio. I'm not holding out a lot of hope though
>because of both the content of the interview and the rather weak reading
>they played.

Philip Pullman should never be allowed to talk about his own books
because he makes them sound much worse than they are. The "Golden
Compass" he actually wrote is inspired, unlike the one you'd think
he intended to write if you listen to him. I'd recommend the real
thing unreservedly; it's a top-notch children's fantasy novel.

- David Librik
librik.DeleteThis@panix.com
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>> British librarians have compiled a list of 30 books to read before you
>> die.
>> It has some strange inclusions, and some strange omissions.
>> One of the inclusions is "Lord of the Rings".
>>
>> Well, no surprise there.
>> But they also include Philip Pullman's "His dark materials" trilogy.
>>
>> I've read them twice, and found them quite enjoyable, though they had
>> some
>> flaws. But I certainly wouldn't include them among the 30 books to
>> read before
>> you die.
>> What about "Alice's adventured in Wonderland", which they omitted?
>>
>> That is far better literature, and far more important to read.
>> And, as children's stories go, Alan Garner's books are far, far better
>> than
>> Pullman's, though they also didn't make the list.
>> None of C.S. Lewis's stories made the list, perhaps because Pullman
>> denounced
>> them as "preachy", though "His dark materials" is just as preachy, if
>> not more
>> so.
>> I wonder if the releace of the film "The golden compass" had anything
>> to do
>> with the librarians' choice.
>> Actually, I'd rate the Harry Potter books above Pullman's ones,
>> although I
>> wouldn't say that they were ones you ought to read before you die.
>>
>> Other strange choices:
>>
>> "The master and Margarita" by Bulgakov, but no Dostoevsky. And again,
>> "Alice's
>> adventures in Wonderland" is much better as fantasy.
>> I've read 19 of the 30 listed in my blog below:
>>
>> http://methodius.blogspot.com/2007/12/books-to-read-before-you-die.html
>>
>> How many have you read, and can you think of better choices?
>>
>>
>
> So, they are definitely classifying the Bible as fiction.

O ye of little faith. In Iowa, Republican presidential
candidates queue up to declare how literally they take God's
book.

What would be really, really neat would be for one of them to
break out into conniptions of glossalalia from the podium.
Maybe a reborn like Giuliani, who seems to have left his
brain at Gracie Mansion.


Say, I wonder if Klausner has reviewed the Bible.
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:11:45 -0400, Derek Broughton <news.TakeThisOut@pointerstop.ca>
wrote:

>Troels Forchhammer wrote:

>> I'm a bit curious about the word "preachy" here. It seems to carry a
>> strongly negative connotation that goes beyond simply the "agitating
>> for an obvious agenda" that the word itself implies, but often I get
>> the impression that the use of the word is very subjective: that it
>> really means "agitating for an obvious agenda, *which /I/ don't
>> like*."
>
>That would be the common usage - and my take on Pullman's feelings about
>Lewis was exactly like that.

I take it as meaning an attempt by the author be moralising and to tell the
reader what to do or believe.

In Lewis's case it is most obvious in the asides to the reader about never
shutting yourself in a wardrobe etc.

Also, for example, in the long speeches by the planetary rulers at the end of
"Perelandra".

In Pullman it is likewise seen in speeches by angels when they expound the
gnostic worldview, and also when explaining the benefits of mingling your
atoms with those of the rest of the universe.

>>> I wonder if the releace of the film "The golden compass" had
>>> anything to do with the librarians' choice.
>>
>> Given that the Potter books, which finished this summer, hasn't made
>> it to the list, I don't really think that popularity has had that
>> much importance.
>
>It's not so much about popularity, as controversy. At least in the US, some
>weighty lobby groups have called for it to be banned - there's nothing like
>a good banning to get the Librarians agitated
>
>> My own list would probably reflect that I'm Danish, including more
>> Danish authors than any non-Dane would
>
>Well, one of the commenters on Steve's blog voted for /Smila's Sense of
>Snow/ by Hoeg (actually, that wasn't the title he used, but it's the title
>of the translation I read). That's worth putting on the list.

I'd list that above Pullman's books too, though not necessarily as a "must
read before you die" book.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/litmain.htm
http://www.librarything.com/catalog/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:50:29 -0400, Derek Broughton <news.RemoveThis@pointerstop.ca>
wrote:

>I've read 13 of them, though I'll be up to 14 shortly.
>
>I find your inclusion of Jasper Fforde, odd - but tastes vary

I enjoyed the first couple of books of his that I read, though I found the
later ones rather tiresome. But I wouldn't say they were books that you must
read before you die.

>I'm not sure whether I should also count "Wuthering Heights" - I never read
>it, but I did ace the test in English class!
>
>As for the ones you didn't think _should_ be on the list: my wife tells me I
>_have_ to read /The Poisonwood Bible/, so that's far more important than
>some group of librarians, and /The curious incident of the dog in the night
>time/ is one of the best books I've _ever_ read.

I've read "The poisonwood Bible" twice, and it's a good read, but again I'm
not sure that it's a "must read before you die" one. I'd say the same about
"The curious incident of the dog in the night time". Both are interesting for
the way they get into the heads of different characters, and the former for
the exploration of crosscultural interactions.

>One book recommended to me here that I will never forget is /Snow Crash/ by
>Neal Stephenson.

I haven't read that one.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/litmain.htm
http://www.librarything.com/catalog/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

These best of lists are generally rather silly and limited in scope to
the group (writers, critics, general public, librarians) generating
them. I'm not suggesting these are books one shouldn't read, just
that there are others that are much better. In the case of this
particular list, besides being anglocentric there isn't a single work
more than 150 years old -- oh that's right -- the English language
wasn't developped until 1850. Including any work published in the last
50 years in a 'should be read before you die list' let alone books
less than 20 years old is, IMHO, complete rubbish -- they haven't
stood the test of time -- plenty of books that were lauded as the
greatest thing since sliced bread in their time are now completely
forgotten. From a book called "The Experts Speak" -- a compendium of
great pronouncements that fell flat -- I recall one notable Victorian
critic's pontification that "Robert Southey's 'Madoc' will be
remembered long after Homer's 'Odyssey' is completely forgotten." I've
actually read Southey's "Madoc" an epic poem of a Welsh prince who
escapes internicine warfare and sails across to America in the 6th
century, only to get entangled in Mesoamerican politics...I don't
recommend it. Furthermore, I'm sorry, but I think Homer's "Odyssey" is
a wee bit more important a work than the "Lord of the Rings" (and
personally I think E.R. Eddison's "The Worm Ouroboros" is a more
seminal work of high fantasy than LOTR, not to mention that some of
James Branch Cabell's fantasies are much more clever).

It is interesting to see how recent-centric or not such lists are.
Among the most temporally balanced lists or comparisons I have come
across are:
(1) a list of the top 100 country artists that appeared in LIFE
magazine 20-odd years ago -- in 1, 2, and 3 -- The Carter Family,
Jimmie Rodgers and Hank Williams, Sr. -- a list that was obviously
put together by people who knew both where the music came from and who
were its giants, regardless of album sales.
(2) Bill James' (a sports writer) "Baseball Abstracts" (I'm not sure
if this is the title) where he used complex algorithms to compare
players in different eras on a level playing field -- a fascinating
book if you're a baseball fan.

but country music and baseball are two domains where people tend to
have a sense of history

Recently there was a top 100 ice hockey players list, of which only
one choice played before 1930 -- and 8/10 played in the last 25 years
-- if you did that with baseball you'd miss most of Babe Ruth's
career! I can understand that there's a limited number of sports
writers out there who would have seen players of that era (<1930)
first hand, but to ignore them completely, or as the NHL does to
complete ignore any records of professional hockey before the NHL's
inception in the early 1920s is ludicrous.

As for "To Kill a Mockingbird" -- while its message of racial
tolerance is an important one (though some would argue that having the
main protagonist an educated white lawyer and the 'victim' a poor
black man without enough intestinal fortitude to choose anything other
than suicide -- actually supports rather than breaks down racial
stereotypes), were works such as Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn" or
(forget the author's name) "Uncle Tom's Cabin" not just as important
in breaking down such barriers? "To Kill a Mockingbird" won the
Pulitzer much more for what it dared to say and what was popular dogma
among liberal social reformists (entirely appropriate as it was and is
now) than for the quality of its writing (the same could be said of
some recent Nobel laureates). There are equally poignant and
significant descriptions of racism against blacks in such works as
Carson McCullers' "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter" and "A Member of the
Wedding" and Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" to name but a few.

As with any list, it's easy to tear it apart if one puts one mind to
it, but that doesn't really help anyone, and if such a list incites
one more person to read, rather than watch 'reality' TV or play video
games on their cell phones, I'm all for it.



G. Dodds
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die