How Very Interesting!
Bill Patterson
of the 10 books you must have read or else consider yourself left out:
1. Margaret Mitchell: Gone With the Wind (1936)
2. J.R.R. Tolkein: Lord of the Rings
3. J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter (all 7 of them apparently)
4. Stephen King: The Stand (1978)
5. Dan Brown: The da Vinci Code
6. Harper Lee: To Kill a Mockingbird (1961)
7. Dan Brown: Angels and Demons
8. Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged (1957)
9. J.D. Salinger: Catcher in the Rye (1951)
10. Doug Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Of course, leaving aside the grotesquerie of having two books by the
most-read-writer-who-has-trouble-stringing-words-together-coherently
on such a list, there are a number of odd and puzzling features about
it. I don't think Catcher in the Rye has nearly the cachet now it did
in the middle decades of the last century, and there are many better
choices for a representative of King than the late-blooming-withered-
one-the-vine overwritten The Stand. Gone With the Wind was hot in the
30 and 40's but it's considered a relic now; Jean Auel's doorstops
could stand in for that one.
But the most astonishing thing to me is that, depending on how you
count The da Vinci Code, five or six of these selections are specfic.
I might wax more about this if I could figure out what the heck
criterion they were using to make the selection. It seems a hodge-
podge to me and with some glaring omissions.
Kurt Busiek
I've read six out of ten, and might get to CATCHER IN THE RYE someday.
But I've got no interest in GONE WITH THE WIND, and if I'vegot to read
Dan Brown or be left out, I'll happily be left out.
I've got plenty to read while the cognoscenti are off doing whatever it
isthey do and I'm home, left out, with better books.
kdb
Gene
512cc0...@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> I might wax more about this if I could figure out what the heck
> criterion they were using to make the selection. It seems a hodge-
> podge to me and with some glaring omissions.
So list the top ten glaring omissions.
William December Starr
Bill Patterson <WHPat...@gmail.com> said:
> One of AOL's trivial bits of throwaway fluff today (7/3/08) was a
> list of the 10 books you must have read or else consider yourself
> left out:
>
> 1. Margaret Mitchell: Gone With the Wind (1936)
> 2. J.R.R. Tolkein: Lord of the Rings
> 3. J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter (all 7 of them apparently)
> 4. Stephen King: The Stand (1978)
> 5. Dan Brown: The da Vinci Code
> 6. Harper Lee: To Kill a Mockingbird (1961)
> 7. Dan Brown: Angels and Demons
> 8. Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged (1957)
> 9. J.D. Salinger: Catcher in the Rye (1951)
> 10. Doug Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
It's interesting how many of those entries fall under the "What we
really mean is, you need to have seen the movie(s)."
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Rich Horton
<WHPat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>One of AOL's trivial bits of throwaway fluff today (7/3/08) was a list
>of the 10 books you must have read or else consider yourself left out:
>
>1. Margaret Mitchell: Gone With the Wind (1936)
>2. J.R.R. Tolkein: Lord of the Rings
>3. J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter (all 7 of them apparently)
>4. Stephen King: The Stand (1978)
>5. Dan Brown: The da Vinci Code
>6. Harper Lee: To Kill a Mockingbird (1961)
>7. Dan Brown: Angels and Demons
>8. Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged (1957)
>9. J.D. Salinger: Catcher in the Rye (1951)
>10. Doug Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
>
>Of course, leaving aside the grotesquerie of having two books by the
>most-read-writer-who-has-trouble-stringing-words-together-coherently
>on such a list,
Well, just so. I mean, what a stupid list! Hardly worth arguing about
much of it -- they are central books to our culture, good or bad, in
about 8 of 10 cases -- but ... but ... ANGELS AND DEMONS? Sure, I can
see why one might list THE DA VINCI CODE -- though I sincerely think
it will be all but forgotten in 20 years -- and it is truly one of the
most poorly written bestsellers of all time -- but why ANOTHER, rather
minor, Dan Brown book?
>there are a number of odd and puzzling features about
>it. I don't think Catcher in the Rye has nearly the cachet now it did
>in the middle decades of the last century, and there are many better
>choices for a representative of King than the late-blooming-withered-
>one-the-vine overwritten The Stand. Gone With the Wind was hot in the
>30 and 40's but it's considered a relic now; Jean Auel's doorstops
>could stand in for that one.
>
Can't agree, though I would agree that for 99% of us just seeing the
movie (which is essential) is enough.
Auel is almost forgotten now, let alone in 20 years. Mitchell was a
poorish writer, but she was much much better than Auel.
>But the most astonishing thing to me is that, depending on how you
>count The da Vinci Code, five or six of these selections are specfic.
>
>I might wax more about this if I could figure out what the heck
>criterion they were using to make the selection. It seems a hodge-
>podge to me and with some glaring omissions.
Quite.
lal_truckee
> One of AOL's trivial bits of throwaway fluff today (7/3/08) was a list
> of the 10 books you must have read or else consider yourself left out:
>
> 1. Margaret Mitchell: Gone With the Wind (1936)
> 2. J.R.R. Tolkein: Lord of the Rings
> 3. J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter (all 7 of them apparently)
> 4. Stephen King: The Stand (1978)
> 5. Dan Brown: The da Vinci Code
> 6. Harper Lee: To Kill a Mockingbird (1961)
> 7. Dan Brown: Angels and Demons
> 8. Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged (1957)
> 9. J.D. Salinger: Catcher in the Rye (1951)
> 10. Doug Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
I'm absolutely glad that I'm left out of that in group, whoever they are.
Dimensional Traveler
> One of AOL's trivial bits of throwaway fluff today (7/3/08) was a list
> of the 10 books you must have read or else consider yourself left out:
>
> 1. Margaret Mitchell: Gone With the Wind (1936)
> 2. J.R.R. Tolkein: Lord of the Rings
> 3. J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter (all 7 of them apparently)
> 4. Stephen King: The Stand (1978)
> 5. Dan Brown: The da Vinci Code
> 6. Harper Lee: To Kill a Mockingbird (1961)
> 7. Dan Brown: Angels and Demons
> 8. Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged (1957)
> 9. J.D. Salinger: Catcher in the Rye (1951)
> 10. Doug Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
>
required for a high school English class.
--
History Channel is showing 'Ice Road Truckers' as part of their
"American Originals" brand of shows.
'Ice Road Truckers' is a show about Canadian truck drivers.
Howard Brazee
<WHPat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>1. Margaret Mitchell: Gone With the Wind (1936)
>2. J.R.R. Tolkein: Lord of the Rings
>3. J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter (all 7 of them apparently)
>4. Stephen King: The Stand (1978)
>5. Dan Brown: The da Vinci Code
>6. Harper Lee: To Kill a Mockingbird (1961)
>7. Dan Brown: Angels and Demons
>8. Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged (1957)
>9. J.D. Salinger: Catcher in the Rye (1951)
>10. Doug Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
I won't ever read the Dan Brown works, and am unlikely to finish the
Harry Potter books. I might or might not read _The Stand_, probably
not. I haven't found that I'm missing anything.
Howard Brazee
<lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'm absolutely glad that I'm left out of that in group, whoever they are.
Those books made a lot of money.
Kurt Busiek
If you count movies, I've seen seven of 'em. And the other three,
there are no movies of, though two of 'em are in the works.
kdb
Default User
> One of AOL's trivial bits of throwaway fluff today (7/3/08) was a list
> of the 10 books you must have read or else consider yourself left out:
One for ten. Hitcher's Guide is the only one I've read or am likely to.
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Gene
kurt@busiekcomics:
> If you count movies, I've seen seven of 'em. And the other three,
> there are no movies of, though two of 'em are in the works.
Not counting movies, I've missed Dan Brown. Counting them, I'e still missed
Dan Brown.
Kurt Busiek
I like Tom Hanks, and I usually like Ron Howard films, so the Dan
Browniness of it doesn't bother me. Particularly since his prose isn't
there in the movie.
It still wasn't a great story, but Hanks, McKellan, Bettany and others
are fun to watch.
kdb
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<WHPat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>One of AOL's trivial bits of throwaway fluff today (7/3/08) was a list
>of the 10 books you must have read or else consider yourself left out:
>
>1. Margaret Mitchell: Gone With the Wind (1936)
>2. J.R.R. Tolkein: Lord of the Rings
>3. J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter (all 7 of them apparently)
>4. Stephen King: The Stand (1978)
>5. Dan Brown: The da Vinci Code
>6. Harper Lee: To Kill a Mockingbird (1961)
>7. Dan Brown: Angels and Demons
>8. Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged (1957)
>9. J.D. Salinger: Catcher in the Rye (1951)
>10. Doug Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
I've read all of those but the Rand and the Brown. I've read
_Anthem_, and am in no hurry to read any of Rand's other work, though
I think I have a copy of _The Fountainhead_ around here somewhere.
But Dan Brown? That's just dumb.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
The ninth issue of the Hugo-nominated webzine Helix
is now at http://www.helixsf.com
lal_truckee
> Bill Patterson wrote:
>
>> One of AOL's trivial bits of throwaway fluff today (7/3/08) was a list
>> of the 10 books you must have read or else consider yourself left out:
>
> One for ten. Hitcher's Guide is the only one I've read or am likely to.
Wait - there's a ringer in the list; Mockingbird is actually worth
reading (independent of the movie version.)
Gene
@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com:
>> One for ten. Hitcher's Guide is the only one I've read or am likely to.
>
> Wait - there's a ringer in the list; Mockingbird is actually worth
> reading (independent of the movie version.)
What a pair of dumbass wise guys.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
I would love to be in that group, despite not liking several of the books.
I would then not need to worry about whether my next book does well or not.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Bill Patterson wrote:
>> One of AOL's trivial bits of throwaway fluff today (7/3/08) was a list
>> of the 10 books you must have read or else consider yourself left out:
>>
>> 1. Margaret Mitchell: Gone With the Wind (1936)
>> 2. J.R.R. Tolkein: Lord of the Rings
>> 3. J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter (all 7 of them apparently)
>> 4. Stephen King: The Stand (1978)
>> 5. Dan Brown: The da Vinci Code
>> 6. Harper Lee: To Kill a Mockingbird (1961)
>> 7. Dan Brown: Angels and Demons
>> 8. Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged (1957)
>> 9. J.D. Salinger: Catcher in the Rye (1951)
>> 10. Doug Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
>>
> I've read four of those. And 'Catcher in the Rye' only because it was
> required for a high school English class.
>
I've read 6 (well, 12, I read all 7 Potter books, but 6 of the
selections). I liked all the ones I read, even THHGTTG, though that one
was the least entertaining of the ones I've read. (I am quite willing to
believe some of the others would be even less so)
David DeLaney
>On 2008-07-03 17:03:55 -0700, Bill Patterson <WHPat...@gmail.com> said:
>> 1. Margaret Mitchell: Gone With the Wind (1936)
>> 2. J.R.R. Tolkein: Lord of the Rings
>> 3. J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter (all 7 of them apparently)
>> 4. Stephen King: The Stand (1978)
>> 5. Dan Brown: The da Vinci Code
>> 6. Harper Lee: To Kill a Mockingbird (1961)
>> 7. Dan Brown: Angels and Demons
>> 8. Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged (1957)
>> 9. J.D. Salinger: Catcher in the Rye (1951)
>> 10. Doug Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
>
>But I've got no interest in GONE WITH THE WIND, and if I'vegot to read
>Dan Brown or be left out, I'll happily be left out.
And I've read five out of ten - or, if you count #3 as seven, #2 as three (or,
for readers here, six), and #10 as four, fifteen (or eighteen) out of ten. But
two of them were for high-school English courses.
I also will leave Dan Brown out, and have heard enough about Ayn Rand
secondhand that I don't feel a need to read her evar at-all, at-all; Mitchell
and King leave me sort of 'blah'.
>I've got plenty to read while the cognoscenti are off doing whatever it
>isthey do and I'm home, left out, with better books.
M3 T00. Currently rereading Pratchett's Discworld _and_ Jordan's Wheel of Time.
(And during the latter, I discovered something I didn't notice before: the
first book, once you've _read_ the whole series, seems almost entirely like
it's a prequel... so it's possible that people who got turned off by the first
book and stopped there might have been hooked better by starting on #2 or #3,
and later going back and reading #1 when they could mentally go "ooo,
foreshadowing" every few pages? Experimenting with this would maybe count as
cruel and unusual for some, though.)
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Par
> I've read all of those but the Rand and the Brown. I've read
> _Anthem_, and am in no hurry to read any of Rand's other work, though
> I think I have a copy of _The Fountainhead_ around here somewhere.
>
> But Dan Brown? That's just dumb.
it is not a list of *litterature*, it is a list of books everyone (in a
particular cultural sphere) has at least heard about. You know,
education defined as that which allows us to participate a conversation
without having watched TV last night.
Yes, I've read most of them, IIRC I tried Rand and gave up, on accunt of
it being unreadable drivel, rejected Dave Brown after having looked at
the first few pages, and refuse to Potter away my time out of some sort
of anti-popular reaction (silly, but I get the hives from watching all
the fanboy stuff going on about something, Tolkein I read before I knew
it was popular and had fanboys).
/Par
--
Par use...@hunter-gatherer.org
Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code.
ncw...@hotmail.com
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:08:13 -0700, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.comics> wrote:
> >On 2008-07-03 17:03:55 -0700, Bill Patterson <WHPatter...@gmail.com> said:
> >> 1. Â Margaret Mitchell: Â Gone With the Wind (1936)
> >> 2. Â J.R.R. Tolkein: Â Lord of the Rings
> >> 3. Â J.K. Rowling: Â Harry Potter (all 7 of them apparently)
> >> 4. Â Stephen King: Â The Stand (1978)
> >> 5. Â Dan Brown: Â The da Vinci Code
> >> 6. Â Harper Lee: Â To Kill a Mockingbird (1961)
> >> 7. Â Dan Brown: Â Angels and Demons
> >> 8. Â Ayn Rand: Â Atlas Shrugged (1957)
> >> 9. Â J.D. Salinger: Â Catcher in the Rye (1951)
> >> 10. Doug Adams: Â The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
>
> >I've read six out of ten, and might get to CATCHER IN THE RYE someday. Â
> >But I've got no interest in GONE WITH THE WIND, and if I'vegot to read
> >Dan Brown or be left out, I'll happily be left out.
>
> And I've read five out of ten - or, if you count #3 as seven, #2 as three (or,
> for readers here, six), and #10 as four, fifteen (or eighteen) out of ten. But
> two of them were for high-school English courses.
>
#10 as four ? Are you excluding _Mostly Harmless_ ?
Cheers,
Nigel.
ncw...@hotmail.com
> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>:
>
> > Â I've read all of those but the Rand and the Brown. Â I've read
> > Â _Anthem_, and am in no hurry to read any of Rand's other work, though
> > Â I think I have a copy of _The Fountainhead_ around here somewhere.
>
> > Â But Dan Brown? Â That's just dumb.
>
> it is not a list of *litterature*, it is a list of books everyone (in a
> particular cultural sphere) has at least heard about. You know,
> education defined as that which allows us to participate a conversation
> without having watched TV last night.
>
Do you include _Angels and Demons_ as a book that everyone has heard
about ? The only place I've seen it mentioned was on the cover blurb
for _The Da Vinci Code_ . For comparison, I've heard of the other
nine and read five of them.
Cheers,
Nigel.
GSV Three Minds in a Can
<02f3a1d2-6c0e-4339...@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
from the wonderful person Bill Patterson <WHPat...@gmail.com> said
>One of AOL's trivial bits of throwaway fluff today (7/3/08) was a list
>of the 10 books you must have read or else consider yourself left out:
>
>1. Margaret Mitchell: Gone With the Wind (1936)
>2. J.R.R. Tolkein: Lord of the Rings
>3. J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter (all 7 of them apparently)
>4. Stephen King: The Stand (1978)
>5. Dan Brown: The da Vinci Code
>6. Harper Lee: To Kill a Mockingbird (1961)
>7. Dan Brown: Angels and Demons
>8. Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged (1957)
>9. J.D. Salinger: Catcher in the Rye (1951)
>10. Doug Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
>
Wind, and 'To Kill a mockingbird' whizzed past me too - did I miss
anything), and there's no way most of them should be on the top10 list.
The second Dan Brown is even worse than the first.
But then, this is AOL right?!
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
12,169 Km walked. 2,402 Km PROWs surveyed. 43.4% complete.
Default User
I recognize that it's a classic, but I'm just not likely to ever read
it. Just not my kind of thing.
Default User
Dumbass, maybe. But I'm not trying to be a wise guy. I'm really,
actually, truly not likely to ever read any of those other books.
Default User
> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>:
> > I've read all of those but the Rand and the Brown. I've read
> > Anthem, and am in no hurry to read any of Rand's other work, though
> > I think I have a copy of _The Fountainhead_ around here somewhere.
> >
> > But Dan Brown? That's just dumb.
>
> it is not a list of litterature, it is a list of books everyone (in a
> particular cultural sphere) has at least heard about. You know,
> education defined as that which allows us to participate a
> conversation without having watched TV last night.
But you don't, actually, especially these days. Back in college and for
years later I faked my way through many a Tolkien discussion. These
days it's even easier, go to Wikipedia and read over the gist of the
book if you want to talk about it.
Gene
@mid.individual.net:
> Dumbass, maybe. But I'm not trying to be a wise guy. I'm really,
> actually, truly not likely to ever read any of those other books.
Pitiful.
Gene
@mid.individual.net:
> But you don't, actually, especially these days. Back in college and for
> years later I faked my way through many a Tolkien discussion. These
> days it's even easier, go to Wikipedia and read over the gist of the
> book if you want to talk about it.
Pitiful. Why even bother being on a group about books?
--
Change but your mind on what you want to see,
And all the world must change accordingly.
Default User
Well, you can take your pity and shove it. Wise guy.
Default User
> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:6d6597F12abvU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
> > But you don't, actually, especially these days. Back in college and
> > for years later I faked my way through many a Tolkien discussion.
> > These days it's even easier, go to Wikipedia and read over the gist
> > of the book if you want to talk about it.
>
> Pitiful. Why even bother being on a group about books?
What they hell are you babbling about? I post to an SF book newsgroup.
I've read plenty of those. High fantasy is not a favorite of mine, so I
haven't read Tolkien. What of it? While my friends were reading LOTR, I
was reading the Known Space books. Whooptey-fucking-doo.
As far as I'm concerned, if you disapprove, so much the better. You are
person on this newsgroup whose opinion I don't respect much.
Matthias Warkus
> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:6d6597F12abvU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>> But you don't, actually, especially these days. Back in college and for
>> years later I faked my way through many a Tolkien discussion. These
>> days it's even easier, go to Wikipedia and read over the gist of the
>> book if you want to talk about it.
>
> Pitiful. Why even bother being on a group about books?
Forgot to take your pills, I suppose?
mawa
--
http://www.prellblog.de
Hallvard B Furuseth
> it is not a list of *litterature*, it is a list of books everyone (in
> a particular cultural sphere) has at least heard about.
...but which are not so successful that they're part of the "cultural
background" or whatever it's called, so the respondents might not even
think about it. The Jungle Book leaves the lot of them in the dust.
Not to mention the Bible.
I'm kind of hoping "Tolkein" was not the OP's typo...
> You know, education defined as that which allows us to participate a
> conversation without having watched TV last night.
--
Hallvard
David DeLaney
>d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>>And I've read five out of ten - or, if you count #3 as seven, #2 as three (or,
>>for readers here, six), and #10 as four, fifteen (or eighteen) out of ten. But
>>two of them were for high-school English courses.
>
>#10 as four ? Are you excluding _Mostly Harmless_ ?
I think I am, actually; mainly because I never remember about it.
Dave "I have the continental version of #2, so was puzzled the first time
someone referred to the ironic use of 'Belgium', because my copy comes right
out and writes it as 'fuck'" DeLaney
Chris Thompson
Bill Patterson <WHPat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>One of AOL's trivial bits of throwaway fluff today (7/3/08) was a list
>of the 10 books you must have read or else consider yourself left out:
>
>2. J.R.R. Tolkein: Lord of the Rings
>3. J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter (all 7 of them apparently)
>4. Stephen King: The Stand (1978)
>5. Dan Brown: The da Vinci Code
>6. Harper Lee: To Kill a Mockingbird (1961)
>7. Dan Brown: Angels and Demons
>8. Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged (1957)
>9. J.D. Salinger: Catcher in the Rye (1951)
>10. Doug Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Well, I've read 2,3,6,10 [*] only so I suppose I am 60% left out.
(I could add to that if I was allowed to count watching movie versions.)
Otherwise, only #9 is on my list of must-read-one-day. I started #5
(not my own copy) but gave up.
[*] Oh, and enjoyed all of them, by the way, although the original
radio series for #10 is better than the books.
--
Chris Thompson
Email: cet1 [at] cam.ac.uk
Chris Thompson
Why would you think that? You didn't imagine that the sparkling wit, the
incisive analysis, the wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command, come to
Gene _naturally_, did you?
Par
> > it is not a list of *litterature*, it is a list of books everyone (in a
> > particular cultural sphere) has at least heard about. You know,
> > education defined as that which allows us to participate a conversation
> > without having watched TV last night.
> >
>
> Do you include _Angels and Demons_ as a book that everyone has heard
> about ? The only place I've seen it mentioned was on the cover blurb
> for _The Da Vinci Code_ . For comparison, I've heard of the other
> nine and read five of them.
It's logic Jim, but not as we know it;
Everybody is a Dan Brown fanboy.
All Dave Brown fanboys have read Angels and Demons
Therefore everybody have read Angels and Demons
/Par
--
Par use...@hunter-gatherer.org
Because if you've put yourself in a position where someone has
to see you in order for you to be safe -- to see you, and to
give a fuck -- you've already blown it. -- Neal Stephenson, 'Zodiac'.
bay...@gmail.com
but have read all the rest, "Catcher in the Rye" only about 4 years
ago; well, have read only about 3 of the Potter books (I am on the
second part of Pullman's trilogy, which is better). OH--tried several
times to read "The Hitchhiker's Guide" but found it too boring to get
into.
BTW--greetings all, just happened upon this NG, hope no one minds my
posting.
Par
> Par writes:
> > it is not a list of *litterature*, it is a list of books everyone (in
> > a particular cultural sphere) has at least heard about.
>
> ...but which are not so successful that they're part of the "cultural
> background" or whatever it's called, so the respondents might not even
> think about it. The Jungle Book leaves the lot of them in the dust.
> Not to mention the Bible.
The list has enough "litterature" to enable one to feel slightly
snobbish, but also enough popular books to enable almost everybody to
imagine that at least they have read more books than most others.
> I'm kind of hoping "Tolkein" was not the OP's typo...
Gentle, gentle, lets make sure the hook is in before we reel him in.
/Par
--
Par use...@hunter-gatherer.org
"And when people come up and ask me about the SIII, I tell them it's an
East German Trabant knockoff of a Jeep. That invariably makes
them lose interest and go away." -- C. Marin Faure
Jack Tingle
> Well, just so. I mean, what a stupid list! Hardly worth arguing about
> much of it -- they are central books to our culture, good or bad, in
> about 8 of 10 cases -- but ... but ... ANGELS AND DEMONS? Sure, I can
> see why one might list THE DA VINCI CODE -- though I sincerely think
> it will be all but forgotten in 20 years -- and it is truly one of the
> most poorly written bestsellers of all time -- but why ANOTHER, rather
> minor, Dan Brown book?
Well, it was a better book than tDVC. That's not saying much, but it was
sufficiently good I was tricked into reading tDVC. (sound of mouthwash).
As to the others, the Lee and the Salinger have some claim to positions
on the list. Maybe the Mitchell. I've never read any of those, so I
can't say for sure, but then, I'm an ignorant ghetto dweller. The Rand
has some interesting, if pugnacious, ideas. The rest are garbage*. And I
have read many of those. :)
Regards,
Jack Tingle
*Yes, I include LoTR. I disliked it, and found it without any real merit.
Par
> > it is not a list of litterature, it is a list of books everyone (in a
> > particular cultural sphere) has at least heard about. You know,
> > education defined as that which allows us to participate a
> > conversation without having watched TV last night.
>
> But you don't, actually, especially these days. Back in college and for
> years later I faked my way through many a Tolkien discussion. These
> days it's even easier, go to Wikipedia and read over the gist of the
> book if you want to talk about it.
Wikipedia, the new alternative to Cliff Notes and Bluffers Guides;
cheaper than the former, and sligthly more dependable than the latter.
I have never used the Cliff Notes, but I am guilty of wikipedia as a
quick source to "what the heck is this about".
I wonder if someone has planted deliberately false information in
wikipedia in order to snare lazy students? Wasn't there a famous LOTR
synopsis somewhere on the web?
/Par
--
Par use...@hunter-gatherer.org
Making mental lists of laws broken is an enjoyable pastime, but I
recommend against putting it in writing. -- Alan J Rosenthal
Bill Patterson
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:03:55 -0700 (PDT), Bill Patterson
>
> <WHPatter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >One of AOL's trivial bits of throwaway fluff today (7/3/08) was a list
> >of the 10 books you must have read or else consider yourself left out:
>
> >1. �Margaret Mitchell: �Gone With the Wind (1936)
> >2. �J.R.R. Tolkein: �Lord of the Rings
> >3. �J.K. Rowling: �Harry Potter (all 7 of them apparently)
> >4. �Stephen King: �The Stand (1978)
> >5. �Dan Brown: �The da Vinci Code
> >6. �Harper Lee: �To Kill a Mockingbird (1961)
> >7. �Dan Brown: �Angels and Demons
> >8. �Ayn Rand: �Atlas Shrugged (1957)
> >9. �J.D. Salinger: �Catcher in the Rye (1951)
> >10. Doug Adams: �The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
>
> I think I have a copy of _The Fountainhead_ around here somewhere.
>
> But Dan Brown? �That's just dumb.
>
> My webpage is athttp://www.watt-evans.com
> The ninth issue of the Hugo-nominated webzine Helix
> is now athttp://www.helixsf.com
Yeah, one of the factors that contributes to my confusion over how
this particular llist was assembled. Can;t be the Hollywood criteria
of box office -- How to Win Friends and INfluence People made tons
more money than any of these. Stranger In a Strange Land did box
office as well as Atlas Shrugged (though it was only one of half a
dozen highly influential books of the sixties rather than the one most
influential book of a somewhat smaller movement of the sixties.). A
lot of people found Catcher in the Rye meaningful -- but more than,
say, Grapes of Wrath? And how about the two books the literati say
are the peak of 20th century literature? As I say, the list seems a
hodge-podge. Frankly I don't think the admission I haven't read Gone
with the Wind and, having seen the movie, have no desire to (which
goes seven times for the Harry Potter books), is going to shock anyone
or cause anyone's tie to be spotted with scorn and contumely.
Bill Patterson
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think Pratchett might have been in that group if there had been a
single book or even a few books that could be singled out from the
general excellence of his oeuvre. Everybody has favorites -- if I had
to single out one Pratchett book, it might be Wee Free Men, even
though it's not one of my personal favorites. But, while you can make
a case for the Lord of the Rings actually being one story, the seven
Harry Potter books is a bit of a stretch, and listing "oh, thirty-five
or so of Terry Pratchett's books" simply wouldn't work.
I think you may need to read Atlas Shrugged and make your own
judgment. The secondhand opinions typically center on what the
individuals loved or hated about it, which can be a highly subjective
factor. YM definitely does V. The story parts of the book move very
rapidly (hey, it's an experimental turn-of-the-century melodrama
format turned science-fiction novel somewhat out of date as to the
technology, turned idea-novel.) You may or may not care for the lead
characters, but the cast is large and you will undoubtedly find
someone to like in it as well as several to hate -- possibly even the
ones Rand wanted you to hate. Same is true of The Fountainhead, but
Atlas Shrugged is the one that giv es you the fullest statement. And
you might even find Francisco's Money Speech or John Galt's 60-page
radio address entertaining in a grim sort of way.
That start with the second book thing wouldn't work very well for
Hitchhiker's Guide, which I have loved in all its incarnations (except
the movie, which was only fair as movies go (despite a few yocks) but
wouldn't have made me want to read the books.
Will in New Haven
Bill Patterson wrote:
> One of AOL's trivial bits of throwaway fluff today (7/3/08) was a list
> of the 10 books you must have read or else consider yourself left out:
>
> 1. Margaret Mitchell: Gone With the Wind (1936)
I've read it. Did nnt do me any harm but I wouldn't read it again.
> 2. J.R.R. Tolkein: Lord of the Rings
I've read it. I got to it late, 1978-1980, but I've read it many times
since.
> 3. J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter (all 7 of them apparently)
Read them all. I don't consider them _great_ but they are ok.
> 4. Stephen King: The Stand (1978)
Read it. Meh?
> 5. Dan Brown: The da Vinci Code
Rather be left out. This is garbage and I could tell on the second
page.
> 6. Harper Lee: To Kill a Mockingbird (1961)
Meh. I read it and I think it's nice that Lee and his characters are
on the right side. But I don't think it's a great novel.
> 7. Dan Brown: Angels and Demons
I would rather stick a pin in my eye.
> 8. Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged (1957)
I am pretty sure I will read this again (for a third read) before I
die but I don't think it's wonderful. I just sort of enjoyed it.
> 9. J.D. Salinger: Catcher in the Rye (1951)
I enjoy the book but I would kick Holden around the block if I met
him. In an interview, Salinger said he didn't like him either.
> 10. Doug Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Meh
No <Huckleberry Finn> no <Kim> no <Stranger in a Strange Land> I don't
even know what this list is trying to _say_
--
Will in New Haven
"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing
degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?
Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession
and under our own direction, and having them under the management of
Congress? If our defense is the real object of having those arms, in
whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety,
as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry, in Debates in the Several State Conventions on the
Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed. 1836, v.3 p
Bill Patterson
Hey, Dan Brown does have one virtue: He's not Dan Simmons . . .
Bill Patterson
wrote:
> Bitstring
> <02f3a1d2-6c0e-4339-844c-512cc04bc...@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> from the wonderful person Bill Patterson <WHPatter...@gmail.com> said>One of AOL's trivial bits of throwaway fluff today (7/3/08) was a list
> >of the 10 books you must have read or else consider yourself left out:
>
> >1. �Margaret Mitchell: �Gone With the Wind (1936)
> >2. �J.R.R. Tolkein: �Lord of the Rings
> >3. �J.K. Rowling: �Harry Potter (all 7 of them apparently)
> >4. �Stephen King: �The Stand (1978)
> >5. �Dan Brown: �The da Vinci Code
> >6. �Harper Lee: �To Kill a Mockingbird (1961)
> >7. �Dan Brown: �Angels and Demons
> >8. �Ayn Rand: �Atlas Shrugged (1957)
> >9. �J.D. Salinger: �Catcher in the Rye (1951)
> >10. Doug Adams: �The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
>
> Oh Dear, I've read 8 of them (never was interested in Gone With the
> Wind, and 'To Kill a mockingbird' whizzed past me too - did I miss
> anything), and there's no way most of them should be on the top10 list.
> The second Dan Brown is even worse than the first.
>
> But then, this is AOL right?!
>
> --
> 12,169 Km walked. 2,402 Km PROWs surveyed. 43.4% complete.
To Kill a Mockingbird is definitely worth a look. It may or may not
hook you, but it's well written, effective and affecting.
Bill Patterson
wrote:
The Stand is the book that caused me to stop reading King, and if I
thought that was overwritten, I had no conception, as I discovered
when I tried to watch the miniseries King scripted from it.
Ahasuerus
> Wikipedia, the new alternative to Cliff Notes and Bluffers Guides;
> cheaper than the former, and sligthly more dependable than the latter.
> I have never used the Cliff Notes, but I am guilty of wikipedia as a
> quick source to "what the heck is this about".
>
> I wonder if someone has planted deliberately false information in
> wikipedia in order to snare lazy students? Wasn't there a famous LOTR
> synopsis somewhere on the web?
"Deliberately false information" is added to Wikipedia by pranksters
all the time. Most of it gets reverted quickly, but sometimes it slips
through the cracks and remains there for years.
Keith Wetzel AKA Space Cadet
> One of AOL's trivial bits of throwaway fluff today (7/3/08) was a list
> of the 10 books you must have read or else consider yourself left out:
>
> 1. Margaret Mitchell: Gone With the Wind (1936)
>
Hmmm, I've read Hitchhikers' specially after having heard the radio
show
I've read LOTR long ago and had ment to reread before the movies
Read To Kill a Mockingbird in highschool
Few years back I picked up a copy of Catcher in the Rye, but haven't
gotten around to read it
Have no interest in Dan Brown, but my(now ex)girlfriend dragged me to
see the movie on our 1st date
Haven't read any of the Potter Books, but my step-daughter keeps
insisting I should and my daughter
has me take her to all the movies.
I've read some Rand, but not sure if it was that title, but really
don't have any interest in reading any other of her work
King, I've seen the TV Movie Stand, but haven't read anything of his.
So going by books I've read 2, 6 & 10, if you add in movies, then 3,4
& 5
Just my $0.02
Keith W of St. Louis AKA Space Cadet
http://www.geocities.com/the_wetzels/
Taki Kogoma
allegedly proclaimed to rec.arts.sf.written:
> I read "GWTW" in sixth grade. I missed the second Brown book somehow,
> but have read all the rest, "Catcher in the Rye" only about 4 years
> ago; well, have read only about 3 of the Potter books (I am on the
> second part of Pullman's trilogy, which is better). OH--tried several
> times to read "The Hitchhiker's Guide" but found it too boring to get
> into.
H2G2 is best experienced in its original format. The subsequent
adaptations to other media lose something. (And in the case of the
movie, should be avoided entirely.)
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider.
Jacey Bedford
<eb1e96f0-a387-470c...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Bill
Patterson <WHPat...@gmail.com> writes
>I think Pratchett might have been in that group if there had been a
>single book or even a few books that could be singled out from the
>general excellence of his oeuvre. Everybody has favorites -- if I had
>to single out one Pratchett book, it might be Wee Free Men, even though
>it's not one of my personal favorites.
My personal favourite is 'Nightwatch' but I'd probably single out 'Lords
and Ladies' or 'Guards Guards' for a book list. The further in to the
Pratchetts you go, the less of a starting place they become purely
because of the fun of knowing what's gone before. And though I wouldn't
be quite so anal as to insist people read Pratchett in order I think
reading some of the character-specific ones in order definitely helps
and reading the earlier stand-alone books before the later ones is to be
recommended.
I don't think it matters too much whether you read the early Guards
books before or after the early Witches ones.
Has Sam Vimes gone head to headology with Granny Weatherwax yet? Have I
missed anything along the way?
Jacey
--
Jacey Bedford
jacey at artisan hyphen harmony dot com
posting via usenet and not googlegroups, ourdebate
or any other forum that reprints usenet posts as
though they were the forum's own
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>lal_truckee wrote:
>
>> Default User wrote:
>> > Bill Patterson wrote:
>> >
>> > > One of AOL's trivial bits of throwaway fluff today (7/3/08) was a
>> > > list of the 10 books you must have read or else consider yourself
>> > > left out:
>> >
>> > One for ten. Hitcher's Guide is the only one I've read or am likely
>> > to.
>>
>> Wait - there's a ringer in the list; Mockingbird is actually worth
>> reading (independent of the movie version.)
>
>I recognize that it's a classic, but I'm just not likely to ever read
>it. Just not my kind of thing.
You're probably wrong about that. Honestly. There's nothing else
like it, and if you're an SF reader, it'll give you a glimpse into an
alien time, place, and mindset.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
William Hyde
> One of AOL's trivial bits of throwaway fluff today (7/3/08) was a list
> of the 10 books you must have read or else consider yourself left out:
>
> 2. J.R.R. Tolkein: Lord of the Rings
> 9. J.D. Salinger: Catcher in the Rye (1951)
> 10. Doug Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
I've read these.
> 6. Harper Lee: To Kill a Mockingbird (1961)
One of those books I intend to read, one day.
> 4. Stephen King: The Stand (1978)
King books work well on long train trips. But I don't
take those much anymore.
> 1. Margaret Mitchell: Gone With the Wind (1936)
Unlikely. Tales of Southern Gentry make my flesh
crawl.
> 3. J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter (all 7 of them apparently)
Right after I take up cliff diving.
> 5. Dan Brown: The da Vinci Code
> 7. Dan Brown: Angels and Demons
> 8. Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged (1957)
After I have a fatal accident cliff diving.
William Hyde
Howard Brazee
<WHPat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hey, Dan Brown does have one virtue: He's not Dan Simmons . . .
I suppose that can make his fantasies easier to read, but easier isn't
necessarily more fun.
I haven't read any of Simmon's non SF - is it more accessible for
those who don't care for his SF?
Howard Brazee
to write book reports after seeing the movie...
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>I just thought - this may be a list of books for people who like want
>to write book reports after seeing the movie...
The exception is a book that a teen can relate to even if he has to
read it.
GSV Three Minds in a Can
<fa205e4b-e2d5-4c00...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
from the wonderful person William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> said
<snip>
>> 4. Stephen King: The Stand (1978)
>
>King books work well on long train trips. But I don't
>take those much anymore.
You'd need a trip from Canada to Mexico, slow speed, to get throught the
uncut version of that one.
>> 1. Margaret Mitchell: Gone With the Wind (1936)
>
>Unlikely. Tales of Southern Gentry make my flesh
>crawl.
>
>> 3. J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter (all 7 of them apparently)
>
>Right after I take up cliff diving.
You're missing out .. not necessarily all 7, but I think folks should
have some exposure to at last one. Has to be the literary phenomenon of
the 21st Century, so far.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Mark_R...@hotmail.com
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> Bill Patterson wrote:
> > One of AOL's trivial bits of throwaway fluff today (7/3/08) was a list
> > of the 10 books you must have read or else consider yourself left out:
>
> > 1. Â Margaret Mitchell: Â Gone With the Wind (1936)
>
> I've read it. Did nnt do me any harm but I wouldn't read it again.
>
> > 2. Â J.R.R. Tolkein: Â Lord of the Rings
>
> I've read it. I got to it late, 1978-1980, but I've read it many times
> since.
>
> > 3. Â J.K. Rowling: Â Harry Potter (all 7 of them apparently)
>
> Read them all. I don't consider them _great_ but they are ok.
>
> > 4. Â Stephen King: Â The Stand (1978)
>
> Read it. Meh?
>
> > 5. Â Dan Brown: Â The da Vinci Code
>
> Rather be left out. This is garbage and I could tell on the second
> page.
>
> > 6. Â Harper Lee: Â To Kill a Mockingbird (1961)
>
> Meh. I read it and I think it's nice that Lee and his characters are
> on the right side. But I don't think it's a great novel.
Harper Lee is a woman. I take it you haven't seen the movie Capote
(I've only seen bits), as somebody portrays her because she and Capote
were long time friends from childhood. In fact, one of Scout's
friends, Dill, is supposed to be modeled upon the young Capote, though
the characters are older than Lee and Capote would have been since his
family moved to New York City when he was nine and she was seven.
Kurt Busiek
<G...@quik.clara.co.uk> said:
> Bitstring
> <fa205e4b-e2d5-4c00...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> from the wonderful person William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> said
> <snip>
>>> 4. Stephen King: The Stand (1978)
>>
>> King books work well on long train trips. But I don't
>> take those much anymore.
>
> You'd need a trip from Canada to Mexico, slow speed, to get throught
> the uncut version of that one.
But well worth it.
A long train ride and the uncut STAND sounds like quite a vacation to
me. Although I think it'd be more fun to go from, say, Atlanta to New
England to Denver and then out to Vegas while rereading it...
kdb
Keith Wetzel AKA Space Cadet
> On 2008-07-04, bayno...@yahoo.com <bayn...@gmail.com>
> allegedly proclaimed to rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> > I read "GWTW" in sixth grade. I missed the second Brown book somehow,
> > but have read all the rest, "Catcher in the Rye" only about 4 years
> > ago; well, have read only about 3 of the Potter books (I am on the
> > second part of Pullman's trilogy, which is better). OH--tried several
> > times to read "The Hitchhiker's Guide" but found it too boring to get
> > into.
>
> H2G2 is best experienced in its original format. The subsequent
> adaptations to other media lose something. (And in the case of the
> movie, should be avoided entirely.)
>
Just my $0.02
Keith W of St. Louis AKA Space Cadet
http://www.geocities.com/the_wetzels/
> --
Mike Schilling
1. Margaret Mitchell: Gone With the Wind (1936)
The movie is a classic, and anyone interested in films should see it.
The book is an old best-seller, no more interesting nowadays than
_Peyton Place_ and far less so than _Uncle Tom's Cabin_.
2. J.R.R. Tolkein: Lord of the Rings
Timeless classic.
3. J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter (all 7 of them apparently)
Publishing phenomenon, which may someday also be considered a t. c.
4. Stephen King: The Stand (1978)
Bloated best-seller. If you read only one Stephen King book, it
wouldn't be this one.
5. Dan Brown: The da Vinci Code
Publishing phenomenon, A quick read if you want to see what all the
fuss was about. A gripping thriller, despite cardboard characters and
fairly shocking illiteracy.
6. Harper Lee: To Kill a Mockingbird (1961)
A wonderful book. Read it.
7. Dan Brown: Angels and Demons
Why? Would a list of recommended children's books include not just
the Alice books but _Sylvie and Bruno_ too?
8. Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged (1957)
Another phenomenon. Unlike TDVC, not a quick read.
9. J.D. Salinger: Catcher in the Rye (1951)
What all the hip kids were reading fifty years ago. Hasn't aged well.
Why CitR and not _Jonathan Livingston Seagull_?
10. Doug Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
A classic and one of the founts of all geek humor, along with Monty
Python.
Jack Tingle
> On 4 Jul 2008 08:24:01 GMT, "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> lal_truckee wrote:
>>
>>> Default User wrote:
>>>> Bill Patterson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One of AOL's trivial bits of throwaway fluff today (7/3/08) was a
>>>>> list of the 10 books you must have read or else consider yourself
>>>>> left out:
>>>> One for ten. Hitcher's Guide is the only one I've read or am likely
>>>> to.
>>> Wait - there's a ringer in the list; Mockingbird is actually worth
>>> reading (independent of the movie version.)
>> I recognize that it's a classic, but I'm just not likely to ever read
>> it. Just not my kind of thing.
>
> You're probably wrong about that. Honestly. There's nothing else
> like it, and if you're an SF reader, it'll give you a glimpse into an
> alien time, place, and mindset.
Yes and no. I grew up there (OK, close to there). I've never looked
homeward, angel. Alien, yes, something I care to remember, no.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
Expatriate Southerner and Proud of It
Besides, air conditioning ruined the South.
Jack Tingle
> 7. Dan Brown: Angels and Demons
>
> Why? Would a list of recommended children's books include not just
> the Alice books but _Sylvie and Bruno_ too?
As I said before, A&D is (IMO) better than tDVC. <--Damned by faint
praise, alas
Regards,
Jack Tingle
Rich Horton
wrote:
>> > 6. Â Harper Lee: Â To Kill a Mockingbird (1961)
>>
>> Meh. I read it and I think it's nice that Lee and his characters are
>> on the right side. But I don't think it's a great novel.
>
>Harper Lee is a woman. I take it you haven't seen the movie Capote
>(I've only seen bits), as somebody portrays her because she and Capote
>were long time friends from childhood. In fact, one of Scout's
>friends, Dill, is supposed to be modeled upon the young Capote, though
>the characters are older than Lee and Capote would have been since his
>family moved to New York City when he was nine and she was seven.
In fact it was long rumored that Capote essentially rewrote TO KILL A
MOCKINGBIRD to publishability. This rumor was based essentially on two
things -- Lee and Capote's friendshp, and the fact that Lee has
published nothing since MOCKINGBIRD.
I believe this rumor has been pretty thoroughly demolished -- there's
not much doubt that MOCKINGBIRD is all Lee's.* I believe it is an
example of a "good bad book". That is, in many ways it's not really
that well done, but its good points make it worth your while anyway.
(*Which isn't to say that Capote didn't serve as a helpful first
reader.)
Lee of course also helped Capote in the research for IN COLD BLOOD.
Garrett Wollman
Bill Patterson <WHPat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>One of AOL's trivial bits of throwaway fluff today (7/3/08) was a list
>of the 10 books you must have read or else consider yourself left out:
>
I don't consider myself left out despite having read only one of
these. I think I was supposed to read the Lee in high school but
somehow managed to bluff my way out of it. I've never managed to get
more than a third of the way into LoTR before deciding that there were
more-interesting ways to waste my time. No interest in any of the
others. And yet my fiction shelves are not exactly empty; I probably
have at least a hundred books that are better than most of the titles
on this list, not to mention a good number that are worse (all of them
by better writers than Dan Brown is reputed to be).
Having said that, I'm not sure I could come up with a list of ten
"must read" novels that had more than a 10% hit rate, either.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
Rich Horton
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It's a weird, random list
>
>1. Margaret Mitchell: Gone With the Wind (1936)
>
>The movie is a classic, and anyone interested in films should see it.
>The book is an old best-seller, no more interesting nowadays than
>_Peyton Place_ and far less so than _Uncle Tom's Cabin_.
>
Exactly.
>2. J.R.R. Tolkein: Lord of the Rings
>
>Timeless classic.
>
Exactly.
>3. J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter (all 7 of them apparently)
>
>Publishing phenomenon, which may someday also be considered a t. c.
>
And I find the people proudly -- and there is no question that the
emotion displayed is pride -- announcing that they aren't going to
read that, no sir, they're better than that -- just downright silly.
The books have weaknesses. Rowling certainly isn't a great prose
stylist, for one thing. (Though she's about a trillion times better
than Dan Brown.) But they are in fact very enjoyable. Now, any one
person may well not find them enjoyable, nor indeed be that interested
in them. And that's fine. But it's not reason for pride.
Not reading Dan Brown, now, is a reason for pride (especially after
reading even a small sample of his prose).
>4. Stephen King: The Stand (1978)
>
>Bloated best-seller. If you read only one Stephen King book, it
>wouldn't be this one.
>
Exactly.
King is a writer people of our time* should read. But THE STAND isn't
the particular book of his to choose.
(*He may well be, however, a writer of "our time" and not timeless.)
>5. Dan Brown: The da Vinci Code
>
>Publishing phenomenon, A quick read if you want to see what all the
>fuss was about. A gripping thriller, despite cardboard characters and
>fairly shocking illiteracy.
>
But the illiteracy is just SO shocking!
>6. Harper Lee: To Kill a Mockingbird (1961)
>A wonderful book. Read it.
>
A worthwhile book that I enjoyed, but I think its weaknesses are
sufficient to remove it from the "wonderful" category.
>7. Dan Brown: Angels and Demons
>
>Why? Would a list of recommended children's books include not just
>the Alice books but _Sylvie and Bruno_ too?
>
Exactly, though I have to believe reading SYLVIE AND BRUNO would be
much more rewarding than reading Dan Brown.
>8. Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged (1957)
>
>Another phenomenon. Unlike TDVC, not a quick read.
>
You may have to read it at the right time -- mid to late teens -- but
it is -- or I found it -- quite involving, even though the underlying
philosophy is a weird mix of sense, silliness, and obnoxiousness.
>9. J.D. Salinger: Catcher in the Rye (1951)
>
>What all the hip kids were reading fifty years ago. Hasn't aged well.
>Why CitR and not _Jonathan Livingston Seagull_?
>
Because CATCHER IN THE RYE, for all that it hasn't really lasted that
well, is MUCH MUCH better than the utterly trite JONATHAN LIVINGSTON
SEAGULL.
I really don't think they compare well.
>10. Doug Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
>
>A classic and one of the founts of all geek humor, along with Monty
>Python.
>
A guilty non-read for me. I thought the movie tiresome, but I know
that's not fair to the book.
Default User
> On 4 Jul 2008 08:24:01 GMT, "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > lal_truckee wrote:
> >> Wait - there's a ringer in the list; Mockingbird is actually worth
> >> reading (independent of the movie version.)
> >
> > I recognize that it's a classic, but I'm just not likely to ever
> > read it. Just not my kind of thing.
>
> You're probably wrong about that. Honestly. There's nothing else
> like it, and if you're an SF reader, it'll give you a glimpse into an
> alien time, place, and mindset.
I've read other things from the time and place, and don't have a
hankering for more. I don't know if that says bad things about me, but
that's the way I feel. I have seen the movie, although I certainly
understand that movies are not their corresponding books regardless of
faithfulness in adapation. I think I'm good at that point.
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Default User
> Default User <defaul...@yahoo.com>:
> > > it is not a list of litterature, it is a list of books everyone
> > > (in a particular cultural sphere) has at least heard about. You
> > > know, education defined as that which allows us to participate a
> > > conversation without having watched TV last night.
> >
> > But you don't, actually, especially these days. Back in college
> > and for years later I faked my way through many a Tolkien
> > discussion. These days it's even easier, go to Wikipedia and read
> > over the gist of the book if you want to talk about it.
>
> Wikipedia, the new alternative to Cliff Notes and Bluffers Guides;
> cheaper than the former, and sligthly more dependable than the latter.
> I have never used the Cliff Notes, but I am guilty of wikipedia as a
> quick source to "what the heck is this about".
Even before that, the Tolkien discussion weren't that hard. The fans
were so eager to talk, all you needed was a few entry phrases. "How
about the Balrog?" stood me in good staid.
For the most part, and this is not meant to denigrate them, the people
who wanted to talk about LOTR weren't looking for a deep back and forth
analysis about the literature, but were wanting to share in comradely
fashion.
The problem was that if you told them you hadn't read it, they were
sure that you needed to. Discussions then turned to missionary attempts
and were even less interesting.
Mike Schilling
>> 10. Doug Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
>>
>> A classic and one of the founts of all geek humor, along with Monty
>> Python.
>>
>
> A guilty non-read for me. I thought the movie tiresome, but I know
> that's not fair to the book.
Of all the versions (radio, novels, TV series, film) the film is by
far the weakest, and the only one I wouldn't recommend.
Kurt Busiek
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 11:15:57 -0700, "Mike Schilling"
> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 8. Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged (1957)
>>
>> Another phenomenon. Unlike TDVC, not a quick read.
>>
>
> You may have to read it at the right time -- mid to late teens -- but
> it is -- or I found it -- quite involving, even though the underlying
> philosophy is a weird mix of sense, silliness, and obnoxiousness.
I enjoyed it immensely -- it's a big sprawling comic-book of a novel,
and I mean that in a good way. Strong, simple conflicts, boldy-drawn
(but shallow) characters, and loads of momentum. Politically, it's
nonsense, but lots of SF and fantasy is politically nonsense -- how
many books do we embrace that are all about restoring the rightful king
to the throne, perpetuating a monarchy just because this generation's
genetic lottery winner is a nice guy?
I suppose what makes it different is that Rand actually thought the
nonsense would work, and made sense.
Still, I found it a fun read. And that 80-page soliloquy (or however
long it was) is actually kind of breathtaking, in context -- by that
point the book's got so much momentum that it pulls it off.
kdb
Kurt Busiek
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> said:
I'd stop at radio & novels, but I'll agree with you on the film.
kdb
Mike Schilling
I watched the TV series recently (never having seen more than a few
episodes), and was very pleasantly surprised by how will it captured
the tone and the humor of the books. The only really jarring note was
Trillian; you have to wonder what moron thought that she should be a
blonde bimbo Conversely, Zooey Deschanel was by far the best thing in
the movie. (Of course, she makes a habit of being the best thing in
otherwise forgettable movies.)
Rich Horton
wrote:
>I enjoyed it immensely -- it's a big sprawling comic-book of a novel,
>and I mean that in a good way. Strong, simple conflicts, boldy-drawn
>(but shallow) characters, and loads of momentum. Politically, it's
>nonsense, but lots of SF and fantasy is politically nonsense -- how
>many books do we embrace that are all about restoring the rightful king
>to the throne, perpetuating a monarchy just because this generation's
>genetic lottery winner is a nice guy?
>
>I suppose what makes it different is that Rand actually thought the
>nonsense would work, and made sense.
>
>Still, I found it a fun read. And that 80-page soliloquy (or however
>long it was) is actually kind of breathtaking, in context -- by that
>point the book's got so much momentum that it pulls it off.
I quite agree with what you say here -- that's very much how I
reacted.
Gene
@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk:
> Why would you think that? You didn't imagine that the sparkling wit, the
> incisive analysis, the wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command, come to
> Gene _naturally_, did you?
I'm merely responding to the literary sneers of the pitiful dumbasses in
question, the kind who cannot enjoy Niven without spitting on Tolkien.
Anyone who thinks Ringworld will be as widely read as LOTR 100 years from
now, please raise your hand.
Gene
news:m7qdnaCiAbTruvPV...@comcast.com:
> *Yes, I include LoTR. I disliked it, and found it without any real merit.
The fact that you are a slobbering moron is noted.
Get lost.
Gene
a9ae97...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> Frankly I don't think the admission I haven't read Gone
> with the Wind and, having seen the movie, have no desire to (which
> goes seven times for the Harry Potter books), is going to shock anyone
> or cause anyone's tie to be spotted with scorn and contumely.
There might be a newsgroup where it would, but I don't know it if so.
Gene
323d-4cb9-add...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
>> 6. Harper Lee: To Kill a Mockingbird (1961)
>
> Meh. I read it and I think it's nice that Lee and his characters are
> on the right side. But I don't think it's a great novel.
I think it's a better book than Gone With the Wind, to the extent to which
such comparisons are fair or make sense. Harper Lee is a her, BTW. The
original one book wonder, unless that's Margaret Mitchell.
Thanks for reintroducing a note of sanity to this thread.
Gene
news:dpXHI8AE...@from.is.invalid:
> You're missing out .. not necessarily all 7, but I think folks should
> have some exposure to at last one. Has to be the literary phenomenon of
> the 21st Century, so far.
Read the first at least-it's often funny and not a doorstopper.
John Schilling
<WHPat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 3, 9:59?pm, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:03:55 -0700 (PDT), Bill Patterson
>> <WHPatter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >One of AOL's trivial bits of throwaway fluff today (7/3/08) was a list
>> >of the 10 books you must have read or else consider yourself left out:
>> >1. ?Margaret Mitchell: ?Gone With the Wind (1936)
>> >2. ?J.R.R. Tolkein: ?Lord of the Rings
>> >3. ?J.K. Rowling: ?Harry Potter (all 7 of them apparently)
>> >4. ?Stephen King: ?The Stand (1978)
>> >5. ?Dan Brown: ?The da Vinci Code
>> >6. ?Harper Lee: ?To Kill a Mockingbird (1961)
>> >7. ?Dan Brown: ?Angels and Demons
>> >8. ?Ayn Rand: ?Atlas Shrugged (1957)
>> >9. ?J.D. Salinger: ?Catcher in the Rye (1951)
>> >10. Doug Adams: ?The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
>> I've read all of those but the Rand and the Brown. ?I've read
>> _Anthem_, and am in no hurry to read any of Rand's other work, though
>> I think I have a copy of _The Fountainhead_ around here somewhere.
>> But Dan Brown? ?That's just dumb.
>Yeah, one of the factors that contributes to my confusion over how
>this particular llist was assembled.
From the "consider yourself left out" criteria, it's pretty obviously
a subjective contemporary-cultural-influence thing. Not money or sales,
not critical acclaim, just how likely the book is to clue you in to what
your coworkers are talking about around the water cooler or whatnot.
Well, I suppose it could be an objective contemporary-cultural-influence
thing, but I doubt it. That would be hard enough to measure that I
think anyone who did it would be telling you in great detail how he did
it.
I suppose it's a pretty decent measure of what's being discussed around
the water coolers at AOL...
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.S...@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Gene
$N87....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com:
> 8. Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged (1957)
>
> Another phenomenon. Unlike TDVC, not a quick read.
It's a fine example of the good bad novel, though.
David DeLaney
>I read "GWTW" in sixth grade. I missed the second Brown book somehow,
>but have read all the rest, "Catcher in the Rye" only about 4 years
>ago; well, have read only about 3 of the Potter books (I am on the
>second part of Pullman's trilogy, which is better). OH--tried several
>times to read "The Hitchhiker's Guide" but found it too boring to get into.
>
>posting.
Welcome; you're fine so far. Take a look around and see if anything looks
interesting.
Dave "there are archives longer than you can shake a Tipler cylinder at"
DeLaney
PS: I recently realized just HOW the Prognosticators of Discworld must work -
since the speed of light is so much slower there, they can be Tipler
cylinders. Alas, I see wikipedia got there first.
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Gene
news:vrrs64llbdm1hgqrt...@4ax.com:
> King is a writer people of our time* should read. But THE STAND isn't
> the particular book of his to choose.
The question is, which one should you read? I think I'll vote for Pet
Semitary.
David DeLaney
>I think Pratchett might have been in that group if there had been a
>single book or even a few books that could be singled out from the
>general excellence of his oeuvre. Everybody has favorites -- if I had
>to single out one Pratchett book, it might be Wee Free Men, even
>though it's not one of my personal favorites.
Having reread it earlier today, I think I still rank it below Night Watch.
But I entirely see what could make someone have it as #1. It's sort of HARD
to get them all far enough apart to see which one's on top.
>I think you may need to read Atlas Shrugged and make your own judgment.
I may someday. But ... if you could see my to-read piles, you'd understand
why that day may end up being after I'm safely dead.
>That start with the second book thing wouldn't work very well for
>Hitchhiker's Guide, which I have loved in all its incarnations (except
>the movie, which was only fair as movies go (despite a few yocks) but
>wouldn't have made me want to read the books.
I did notice that you don't want to start Jordan as far up as book 4, which
pretty much leaves 2 or 3 ... but that either one of those two _could_ work.
(After all, he later wrote a prequel to #1... and C.S. Lewis did it better
anyway.)
Dave
David DeLaney
>The Stand is the book that caused me to stop reading King, and if I
>thought that was overwritten, I had no conception, as I discovered
>when I tried to watch the miniseries King scripted from it.
I own, have read, and enjoyed in a pulpy way his Firestarter. I also own and
have read his "Carrie", which left me meh. I'm not a horror fan to start with,
and nothing much else he's produced has ever gotten me interested from the
cover blurb or from someone else's description. But he doesn't need me, to
have become rich, luckily.
Dave "commas inserted so that dangles in the correct direction" DeLaney
Kurt Busiek
Ghh!
I wouldn't _start_ with PET SEMATARY, at least.
Maybe DIFFERENT SEASONS (for "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank
Redemption" and "The Body"), MISERY or BAG OF BONES. The latest, DUMA
KEY, is pretty strong, too.
Then again, I think THE STAND is a very good place to start, too.
kdb
David DeLaney
>Exactly, though I have to believe reading SYLVIE AND BRUNO would be
>much more rewarding than reading Dan Brown.
I've read S&B. (Hmmm ... why DIDN'T I get it off Gutenberg already? Well,
I have now.) It definitely isn't either Alice, and is syrupy to boot - but
has its points. I'm inclined to agree with Rich, therefore.
Dave
pullo
"Gene" <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote in message
news:Xns9AD1890A134D9ge...@207.115.33.102...
Curious. I would choose both of those as King books one should read.... and
maybe Christine & - not a popular choice - Salem's Lot.
Jacey Bedford
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> writes
movie. I thought the original BBC TV series did a better job than the
movie but neither had visuals as good as the radio version. I've been a
firm fan since catching the original radio episode in my way home from
work one night in er... sometime between 1975 and 1978. (Not sure when
it came out, but I know where I was working and living so that narrows
it down.)
Jacey
--
Jacey Bedford
jacey at artisan hyphen harmony dot com
posting via usenet and not googlegroups, ourdebate
or any other forum that reprints usenet posts as
though they were the forum's own
Rebecca Rice
> Bill Patterson <WHPat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The Stand is the book that caused me to stop reading King, and if I
>> thought that was overwritten, I had no conception, as I discovered
>> when I tried to watch the miniseries King scripted from it.
>
> I own, have read, and enjoyed in a pulpy way his Firestarter. I also own and
> have read his "Carrie", which left me meh. I'm not a horror fan to start with,
> and nothing much else he's produced has ever gotten me interested from the
> cover blurb or from someone else's description. But he doesn't need me, to
> have become rich, luckily.
>
> Dave "commas inserted so that dangles in the correct direction" DeLaney
I actually think that he's better at writing short stories.
Maybe because that way they can be eerie and creepy
without being too over-the-top? And you don't need as much
character development as in a novel. But stories like
"Strawberry Spring", "I Know What You Need", "The Reach",
"The Children of the Corn", "Jerusalem's Lot" (shorts, not
books), "The Last Rung on the Ladder", and many more, re
quite good, imo.
Rebecca
Rebecca Rice
with _The Shining_.
Rebecca
pullo
"Kurt Busiek" <ku...@busiek.comics> wrote in message
news:2008070413344837709-kurt@busiekcomics...
> On 2008-07-04 13:29:01 -0700, Gene <ge...@chewbacca.org> said:
>
>> Rich Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote in
>> news:vrrs64llbdm1hgqrt...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> King is a writer people of our time* should read. But THE STAND isn't
>>> the particular book of his to choose.
>>
>> The question is, which one should you read? I think I'll vote for Pet
>> Semitary.
>
> Ghh!
>
> I wouldn't _start_ with PET SEMATARY, at least.
>
> Maybe DIFFERENT SEASONS (for "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption"
> and "The Body")
Although I really enjoyed DS I didn't consider it 'King' as they aren't his
normal thing. Also his Bachman books were enjoyable but again not 'King' in
my mind.
That sort disqualifies them for 'starter' books.
Kurt Busiek
I'm not all that fond of THE SHINING, but I can't argue with it, in
much the same way that I can't make it through STRANGER IN A STRANGE
LAND, but so many people swear by it that it's obviously got a
different effect on many readers.
kdb
Kurt Busiek
I think his work, post-MISERY, has been growing more and more like the
stuff in DIFFERENT SEASONS and less like the early stuff -- his "normal
thing" is changing with time.
I think both "Rita Hayworth..." and "The Body" show off his "regional
voice" well, and have a relaxed, engaging sense of character and
texture that's surfaced more and more in his work as he's grown more
accomplished in the use of language and less likely to depend on plot
and shock.
So they're not emblematic of early King, but I think they make a good
starting point nonetheless. But then, with a few exceptions (THE STAND
being one), I'm more of a fan of later King than earlier King, so the
works that show those strengths are going to be the ones I key on.
kdb
Will in New Haven
> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in news:7cf56c23-
> 323d-4cb9-add4-b3f5b4955...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> 6. Harper Lee: To Kill a Mockingbird (1961)
>
> > Meh. I read it and I think it's nice that Lee and his characters are
> > on the right side. But I don't think it's a great novel.
>
> I think it's a better book than Gone With the Wind, to the extent to which
> such comparisons are fair or make sense. Harper Lee is a her, BTW. The
> original one book wonder, unless that's Margaret Mitchell.
>
> Thanks for reintroducing a note of sanity to this thread.
It is certainly a better book than GWTW. It is a better than decent
book, even a good book. It is simply over-rated. I KNEW that Harper
Lee was a woman at one time but lost track of it.
Never mention sanity in my presence again.
--
Will in New Haven
"Decaf? Decaf is for children!" - Jim Thompson
Mike Schilling
I will take your word for it.
Default User
> ce...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Chris Thompson) wrote in news:g4l1ni$4tl$1
> @gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk:
>
> > Why would you think that? You didn't imagine that the sparkling
> > wit, the incisive analysis, the wrinkled lip and sneer of cold
> > command, come to Gene naturally, did you?
>
> I'm merely responding to the literary sneers of the pitiful dumbasses
> in question, the kind who cannot enjoy Niven without spitting on
> Tolkien.
Jackass. No one did that here. It's all in your fevered imagination.
Hint, dumbass, there's a difference between "that's bad" and "that's
something I'm not likely to enjoy".
Now go lie down on the interstate, you condescending prick.
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Gene
@mid.individual.net:
> Jackass. No one did that here.
They sure did.
William December Starr
d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) said:
> Bill Patterson <WHPat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think you may need to read Atlas Shrugged and make your own
>> judgment.
>
> I may someday. But ... if you could see my to-read piles, you'd
> understand why that day may end up being after I'm safely dead.
Rule 17: Don't think of it as a to-be-read pile. Call it a
Strategic Book Reserve instead.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
D.F. Manno
<02f3a1d2-6c0e-4339...@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Patterson <WHPat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One of AOL's trivial bits of throwaway fluff today (7/3/08) was a list
> of the 10 books you must have read or else consider yourself left out:
>
> 1. Margaret Mitchell: Gone With the Wind (1936)
> 2. J.R.R. Tolkein: Lord of the Rings
> 3. J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter (all 7 of them apparently)
> 4. Stephen King: The Stand (1978)
> 5. Dan Brown: The da Vinci Code
> 6. Harper Lee: To Kill a Mockingbird (1961)
> 7. Dan Brown: Angels and Demons
> 8. Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged (1957)
> 9. J.D. Salinger: Catcher in the Rye (1951)
> 10. Doug Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
I've read 13 of the 20 books on that Top 10 list.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man零 oldest exercises in
moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification
for selfishness. (John Kenneth Galbraith)
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<bay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I read "GWTW" in sixth grade. I missed the second Brown book somehow,
>but have read all the rest, "Catcher in the Rye" only about 4 years
>ago; well, have read only about 3 of the Potter books (I am on the
>second part of Pullman's trilogy, which is better). OH--tried several
>times to read "The Hitchhiker's Guide" but found it too boring to get
>into.
>
>BTW--greetings all, just happened upon this NG, hope no one minds my
>posting.
Welcome aboard!
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
The ninth issue of the Hugo-nominated webzine Helix
is now at http://www.helixsf.com
William December Starr
Gene <ge...@chewbacca.org> said:
> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:6d6597F...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> But you don't, actually, especially these days. Back in college
>> and for years later I faked my way through many a Tolkien
>> discussion. These days it's even easier, go to Wikipedia and
>> read over the gist of the book if you want to talk about it.
>
> Pitiful. Why even bother being on a group about books?
Because while Tolkien was an awesome world-builder, he wasn't very
good at all as a storyteller, perhaps. (N.B. "epic" can and in this
case does != "story.")