Books to read before you die

Francis A. Miniter wrote:

> Steve Hayes wrote:
>
> 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.

Stevenson, surely. I admit I have always _intended_ to read Ivanhoe. So I
just put _that_ on hold from the library too.

> No mention of any of the following:

Probably an excellent list, as I'd agree about all the authors I've actually
read (Except Melville, who was tedious).

One I meant to mention was /Blindness/ by José Saramago. I'm waiting with
baited breath for the film.

> 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?

I thought Cat's Cradle was Steve's choice. I've always had a special liking
for that book, as it was the first of Vonnegut's that I read, but imo you
could put anything of his on the list. And there wasn't enough of it.
--
derek
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

David Librik <librik DeleteThis @panix.com> wrote:
> 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.

Seconded. Just ignore anything Pullman says; the trilogy is at least
better-than-average fantasy, and worth reading.

- Dirk
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

Ruritanian Muglug wrote:

> 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.

Well, no, it wasn't really. Anything much older than that is far from
simple to read. Have you ever seen the original Shakespeare?

> Furthermore, I'm sorry, but I think Homer's "Odyssey" is
> a wee bit more important a work than the "Lord of the Rings"

OK, just a "wee" bit...

> (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).
!!!!!

> 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)

Harriet Beecher Stowe, I believe.

> "Uncle Tom's Cabin" not just as important
> in breaking down such barriers?

I don't think Huckleberry Finn did anything of the sort, and much as I love
Mark Twain, I still think /To Kill a Mockingbird/ is a better book. /Uncle
Tom's Cabin/ is another hole in my education...

> 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.

Absolutely.
--
derek
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

Steve Hayes (hayesmstw@hotmail.com) wrote:

> 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?

I've only read 13 of them.

It seems strange that Dickens gets 10% of the available slots. I
don't care for Dickens at all, but I understand that most readers
would want him represented on such a list.

I found the Pullman trilogy fascinating for part of the first book,
then dreary, then a little interesting toward the end. After that it
was just a descent into a chaotic mishmash of whatever the author
could think to toss in.

I agree that Alice's Adventures in Wonderland would do well on the
list. I'd toss two of the Dickens, and Jane Eyre, and The Curious
Incident of the Dog in the Night-time to make plenty of room. I found
that last to be a good freshman effort but quite over-rated. The
author, Mark Haddon, essentially admits in an interview that he
wasn't confident of his material being interesting on its own, so he
introduced the whole Wilkie Collin-ish gothic element to keep the
reader turning pages. I would have enjoyed the book more without all
that if it had simply been presented as a simple attempt to solve a
simple mystery.

Lewis would have suggested including Animal Farm instead ot 1984. I
tend to agree.

It's interesting that the question does not specify fiction books,
yet all 30 are fiction. (I think. I didn't recognize a couple of the
titles.)

They're also all prose. I would at least include Paradise Lost in the
list. Maybe a Shakespeare play as well--Hamlet, I guess.

--
Bill Baldwin
http://bettercovenant.wordpress.com/
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

Derek Broughton (news@pointerstop.ca) wrote:

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

Interesting. I've almost completely forgotten it and I read it less
than a year ago.

--
Bill Baldwin
http://bettercovenant.wordpress.com/
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

On Dec 5, 10:50 am, Derek Broughton <n... DeleteThis @pointerstop.ca> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Particularly, he argued that (a) his work isn't fantasy - I just hate when
> authors don't have the nerve to admit that they write genre fiction
> (Margaret Atwood always argues that /The Handmaid's Tale/ isn't Science
> Fiction, too); (b) that his work discusses deep moral issues - unlike
> Tolkien - the argument being something to the effect that LOTR is just the
> age-old battle of Good Vs. Evil, and in the end Frodo does what we all know
> he was going to do and throws the Ring away (seems like he succumbed to
> what he complains about in his critics, and didn't actually read the
> books); (c) Lewis writes great criticism, but cops out when it comes to
> fantasy - I at least agree partly there, when he said that a better moral
> message at the end would have had the children going on to do good in the
> world, rather than dieing in a train crash and going to their reward in the
> afterlife.
>
> > What about "Alice's adventured in Wonderland", which they omitted?
>
> > That is far better literature, and far more important to read.
>
> Indeed. Preferably Martin Gardner's "Annotated Alice".
>
> > 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.
>
> Oh, you cynic
>
>
>
> > 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?
>
> 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'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.
>
> One book recommended to me here that I will never forget is /Snow Crash/ by
> Neal Stephenson.
> --
> derek

The Master and Margarita is a must. So is Hunger by Hamsun.

Andre
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

On Dec 5, 1:03 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> 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?
>
> --
> Steve Hayes
> Web:http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/litmain.htm
> http://www.librarything.com/catalog/hayesstw
> http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius

Anything is better than the Bible, even Deaver.
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

Don Phillipson wrote:
> "Derek Broughton" <news.RemoveThis@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.

"Higher"? I wasn't aware that genres could be ranked that way.

> 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.

You have just described much of Ursula K. LeGuins writings, which are
generally accepted as being science fiction.

--
Venlig hilsen /Best regards
Kristian Damm Jensen
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 16:48:19 +0100, "Kristian Damm Jensen"
<damm.usenet DeleteThis @kristiandamm.dk> wrote:

>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. 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.
>
>"Higher"? I wasn't aware that genres could be ranked that way.
>
>> 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.
>
>You have just described much of Ursula K. LeGuins writings, which are
>generally accepted as being science fiction.

I don't recall any Space Aliens in the movie version of /The
Handmaid's Tale/; perhaps they were left out for simplicity. I do
recall Space Aliens in the novel /The Telling/. Wikipedia suggests
that some of her works are Science Fiction, including /The Telling/,
some are Fantasy, and some are neither.
--
"He who should know the history of words
would know all history"
 >> 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.
>
> 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


Also left off was Robertson Davies, whose Deptford Trilogy is one of the finest
stories I have ever read.


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

"Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:m1fcl357cspmu7r3l0ou30da7i983e56mu@4ax.com...

[snip]

> Other strange choices:
>
> "The master and Margarita" by Bulgakov, but no Dostoevsky. And again,
> "Alice's
> adventures in Wonderland" is much better as fantasy.

"The Master and Margarita" is a wonderful book that deserves inclusion on
such a list, but of coruse, they should at the very lelast have included
"Crime and Punishment" as well.

Öjevind
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

"Bill Baldwin" <bbwebpage+usenet@gmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns99FEE8D731742bbwebpage@130.133.1.4...

[snip]

> Lewis would have suggested including Animal Farm instead ot 1984. I
> tend to agree.

Me too.

Öjevind
 >> Stay informed about: Books to read before you die 

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 02:15:36 +0100, "Öjevind Lång" <bredband.net RemoveThis @ojevind.lang>
wrote:

>"Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw RemoveThis @hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
>news:m1fcl357cspmu7r3l0ou30da7i983e56mu@4ax.com...
>
>[snip]
>
>> Other strange choices:
>>
>> "The master and Margarita" by Bulgakov, but no Dostoevsky. And again,
>> "Alice's
>> adventures in Wonderland" is much better as fantasy.
>
>"The Master and Margarita" is a wonderful book that deserves inclusion on
>such a list, but of coruse, they should at the very lelast have included
>"Crime and Punishment" as well.

In the genre, I think the Alice books are better than "The master and
Margarita", and among Russian authors, yes, I think Dostoevsky is better.

I thought "The master and Margarita" started off well, but lost it towards the
end.



--
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