I read 46...
-
Like most news organisations, the BBC tends to attract people of a certain political bent. I doubt Atlas Shrugged would be on the recommended reading list of any news organisation. There is a very good book by Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, that examines intellectuals and intellectualism. Whether or not you agree with his thesis, I think you will find it an interesting read.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
And you? http://www.listchallenges.com/kaunismina-bbc-6-books-challenge[^]
Skipper: We'll fix it. Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this? Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
I'll admit, I'm not an avid reader. I only scored 11. Half of them were part of my university course requirements -- the 11, not the 100.
The difficult may take time, the impossible a little longer.
-
And you? http://www.listchallenges.com/kaunismina-bbc-6-books-challenge[^]
Skipper: We'll fix it. Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this? Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
A bit disappointing, expected I would have read more...
-
And you? http://www.listchallenges.com/kaunismina-bbc-6-books-challenge[^]
Skipper: We'll fix it. Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this? Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
A Whopping 11, LOL. And I have to admit most of those where Required Reading in HS, although I enjoyed a few on my own. Of course, they missed the critical books: - Algorithms, Sedgewick - Mythical Man Month, Brooks - Effective Oracle, Kyte - Code Complete, McConnell - How to Solve it, Polya etc.. I did see a few of the movies... Maybe I don't have the cultural diversity I thought I did...
-
And no Pterry Pratchett? No Orson Scott Card? Harry Potter gets in, but Belgarion doesn't?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
Good point! I must have read more than ten of the Discworld books in the space of a year or two as a teen in the mid 1990s. Each one struck me as more enjoyable and more interesting than the first Harry Potter book (admittedly, the only one of the series I've read... aloud, to my daughter, so a very different reading experience). Speaking of HP... no H.P. Lovecraft? No Journey to the Centre of the Earth? No Around the World in 80 Days? No Chronicles of Thomas Covenant? Well fine... I'm a bit embarrassed to say "23" :sigh:
-
And you? http://www.listchallenges.com/kaunismina-bbc-6-books-challenge[^]
Skipper: We'll fix it. Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this? Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
Fourteen.
-
Like most news organisations, the BBC tends to attract people of a certain political bent. I doubt Atlas Shrugged would be on the recommended reading list of any news organisation. There is a very good book by Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, that examines intellectuals and intellectualism. Whether or not you agree with his thesis, I think you will find it an interesting read.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
And you? http://www.listchallenges.com/kaunismina-bbc-6-books-challenge[^]
Skipper: We'll fix it. Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this? Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
Of the BBC list? Perhaps a dozen. But that list has a LOT of really bad or boring books. I've read over 20,000 books. I average at least one a day -- I have read two Brad Thor books since I got up yesterday evening ("The apostle" and "Foreign Influence"). I still have every one of them that wasn't borrowed. My daughter is starting to read some of them. I read "Gone With the Wind" and loved it - in the 3rd grade (its also what lead me to getting unlimited borrowing privileges in grade school :-D ). There are some great books, but not that many "classical" books are great. There were some good - even great - books written in the past (I love Sherlock Holmes, for instance) - but most of Charles Dickens' books are complete crap. While there are a huge number of garbage books written today, some far eclipse anything written in the past. Especially once the publisher's page limit was broken a few decades ago.
-
And you? http://www.listchallenges.com/kaunismina-bbc-6-books-challenge[^]
Skipper: We'll fix it. Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this? Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
-
32. They missed out Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go although they did include The Remains Of The Day. Glad to see Donna Tarte's Secret History there - probably one of the best novels I have read in the past 10 years. + how about the translations of Iliad, the Oddysey and the Aeneid?
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
I didn't like the Diskworld novels
Burn the heretic!
Skipper: We'll fix it. Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this? Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
Well, I'm a Terry Prachett fan (I have read all his fiction books, including the non-Discworld ones). But, like Orson Scott Card's SF, Pratchett's books are not to include in a Top 100 list. After reading a Disc-world novel, particularly one of the later ones where flashes of absolute genius are popping up here and there, one gets a kind of "chinese meal" syndrome - delicious at the time, but you are hungry again an hour later. So much more could have done Terry! To bring to life characters and relationships like The Patrician and Drumknott, and just leave them hanging as cardboard cut-outs is some kind of literary sin of omission.
-
35. A bit weird though that they list both Chronicles of Narnia (7 books) and The LW&W separately. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project!
Not so weird, or at least not so inconsistent. They listed "The Complete Works of Shakespeare" and "Hamlet" separately. "Hamlet" happens to be the one play most widely read. And "The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe" is the first book in the Narnia series. And is the most widely read.
-
This list is plain stupid: I don't see Italo Calvino, Alessandro Manzoni, Dante Alighieri, Italo Svevo, Leonardo Sciascia, Giovanni Verga or Luigi Pirandello in any of those authors. That's just for Italian literature, because internationally I couldn't see Tolstoj, Chekhov or Erich Maria Remarque, just to name a few. Still, it names Dan Brown - ok let's put Clive Cussler in it just to raise the level :doh: EDIT: it misses all of the Epic genre, as the Odissey, Aeneid and Iliad (which I read aged 12), it misses (if I did not miss it) Edgar Allan Poe. I will not name any investigative book (only Conan Doyle is named), whreas I read almost the entire bibliography of Rex Stout, Ellery Queen and Agatha Christie. EDIT 2: There was Tolstoj, my bad. The rest is unchanged though...
Geek code v 3.12 { GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X } If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
I agree with you about Dan Brown (one of God's little jokes on the ignorant readership of today). But chucking in a whole bunch of non-English authors is coming it a bit strong. Also, keep in mind that, to English-speaking readers, only Russian and Japanese novelists write convincingly. Romance language authors, in particular, are stuck in a kind of "picaresque", broad, and psychologically naive mode. Not because they lack skill, but because that mode is most conducive to sending the clunky political messages which they believe is the purpose of novel writing. Bar those South Americans who are positively influenced by Borges, of course.
-
Well, I'm definitely not average - was reading at least one book a week since my 10th birthday (and I'm 41 now). Do the calcs, I can't be bothered. I've read 54 of the 100, some of those multiple times in different editions (especially the Sherlock Homes versions). But I'm definitely with the idea that the list is suspect. E.g. it lists Roald Dahl's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". But in my mind (having read all 3) the more popular books of his would be "The Gremlins" and "Matilda" (both which has been made into films one even inspiring a whole series of films). Even "James and the Giant Peach" is at least as memorable as CatCF. And with the Charles Dickens novels it's even worse - the list includes Bleak House, David Copperfield, Great Expectations & A Christmas Carol. What? Oliver Twist didn't make the cut, but those did! And IMO if they want to include several of Charles Dickens' novels (even if they missed his most popular one), then why not rather include Lemony Snicket's (Daniel Handler) "A Series of Unfortunate Events"? And if they include only "classics", then what the Elephant got into them to exclude Edgar Allan Poe from the list? The Sherlock Holmes collection made it in, but not even a mention of any of Agatha Christie's novels - WTE? And then if they want to blazon multiple books by one writer, then why only Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit (by JRRT)? Why not also "The Children of Húrin" and "The Silmarillion". And I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they saw LoR as the entire trillogy, not just the first volume! Of course, if the books are only those from which films were made, then it makes sense. Same goes for Frank Herbert's Dune series - I hope by "Dune" they mean the entire set of novels he's written (not just the first volume - which was named Dune, but also Dune Mesiah, The Children of Dune, God Emperor of Dune, Heretics of Dune & Chapter-house Dune) including those his son wrote after his death to finally finish the saga (Hunters of Dune, Sandworms of Dune, Winds of Dune & Sisterhood of Dune) and include the prequels to all the great houses (The Machine Crusade, The Butlerian Jihad, House Atriedes, House Harkonnen, House Corrino, etc.). My biggest gripe however: Douglas Adams' "Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy" is in ... none of the rest (which actually comprised most of the stuff shown in the
"least one book a week since my 10th birthday" Never mind the quality, feel the width!
-
Of the BBC list? Perhaps a dozen. But that list has a LOT of really bad or boring books. I've read over 20,000 books. I average at least one a day -- I have read two Brad Thor books since I got up yesterday evening ("The apostle" and "Foreign Influence"). I still have every one of them that wasn't borrowed. My daughter is starting to read some of them. I read "Gone With the Wind" and loved it - in the 3rd grade (its also what lead me to getting unlimited borrowing privileges in grade school :-D ). There are some great books, but not that many "classical" books are great. There were some good - even great - books written in the past (I love Sherlock Holmes, for instance) - but most of Charles Dickens' books are complete crap. While there are a huge number of garbage books written today, some far eclipse anything written in the past. Especially once the publisher's page limit was broken a few decades ago.
"not that many "classical" books are great" "most of Charles Dickens' books are complete crap" Books, and reading, like guns and computers, are morally neutral. They can be used for good or ill, or to no purpose. Reading the back of the Kellog's Corn Flake packet every morning for 20 years is not, IMHO, going to do much to "improve your mind". Reading a Mills & Boon romance novel every day may have an impact on your mind, but not necessarily a good one. Anyone who can couple the two quotes above with "I've read 20,000 books" seriously doesn't get it. And how can you read 20,000 books with stumbling, even accidentally, into some of the really great classics? By my calculation, assuming you are less than 50 years old, say 45, and that you started reading novels in your teens, say 15, then you have been reading more than two books a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. As a keen reader myself, I wonder how you keep the supply?
-
Well, I'm definitely not average - was reading at least one book a week since my 10th birthday (and I'm 41 now). Do the calcs, I can't be bothered. I've read 54 of the 100, some of those multiple times in different editions (especially the Sherlock Homes versions). But I'm definitely with the idea that the list is suspect. E.g. it lists Roald Dahl's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". But in my mind (having read all 3) the more popular books of his would be "The Gremlins" and "Matilda" (both which has been made into films one even inspiring a whole series of films). Even "James and the Giant Peach" is at least as memorable as CatCF. And with the Charles Dickens novels it's even worse - the list includes Bleak House, David Copperfield, Great Expectations & A Christmas Carol. What? Oliver Twist didn't make the cut, but those did! And IMO if they want to include several of Charles Dickens' novels (even if they missed his most popular one), then why not rather include Lemony Snicket's (Daniel Handler) "A Series of Unfortunate Events"? And if they include only "classics", then what the Elephant got into them to exclude Edgar Allan Poe from the list? The Sherlock Holmes collection made it in, but not even a mention of any of Agatha Christie's novels - WTE? And then if they want to blazon multiple books by one writer, then why only Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit (by JRRT)? Why not also "The Children of Húrin" and "The Silmarillion". And I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they saw LoR as the entire trillogy, not just the first volume! Of course, if the books are only those from which films were made, then it makes sense. Same goes for Frank Herbert's Dune series - I hope by "Dune" they mean the entire set of novels he's written (not just the first volume - which was named Dune, but also Dune Mesiah, The Children of Dune, God Emperor of Dune, Heretics of Dune & Chapter-house Dune) including those his son wrote after his death to finally finish the saga (Hunters of Dune, Sandworms of Dune, Winds of Dune & Sisterhood of Dune) and include the prequels to all the great houses (The Machine Crusade, The Butlerian Jihad, House Atriedes, House Harkonnen, House Corrino, etc.). My biggest gripe however: Douglas Adams' "Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy" is in ... none of the rest (which actually comprised most of the stuff shown in the
I read 55. I didn't count those that I started, and put down as unreadable (by me anyway), like Ulysses, Cold Comfort Farm, Confederacy of Dunces and others). There were quite a few books on the list I would never read (Dan Brown, Margaret Attwood, Ian McEwan) because reviews warn me off (often by reviewers who like the books). The review of "The Da Vinci Code" was so fall down funny that when I did try to read the Da Vinci Code, I just had to put it down from laughing. And there are several on the list that I wont read, having read other books by that author (such as Gabriel Garcia Marquez).
-
"not that many "classical" books are great" "most of Charles Dickens' books are complete crap" Books, and reading, like guns and computers, are morally neutral. They can be used for good or ill, or to no purpose. Reading the back of the Kellog's Corn Flake packet every morning for 20 years is not, IMHO, going to do much to "improve your mind". Reading a Mills & Boon romance novel every day may have an impact on your mind, but not necessarily a good one. Anyone who can couple the two quotes above with "I've read 20,000 books" seriously doesn't get it. And how can you read 20,000 books with stumbling, even accidentally, into some of the really great classics? By my calculation, assuming you are less than 50 years old, say 45, and that you started reading novels in your teens, say 15, then you have been reading more than two books a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. As a keen reader myself, I wonder how you keep the supply?
First, I started reading before 5, got into heavier reading around 7 (starting with Gone With the Wind) and am over 60 now and retired. I was probably the only kid who wrote to Tom Swift, Jr. instead of Santa Claus! I read very fast and always have (not rushing it, just my natural reading speed). When I was working, I would typically read half a book during lunch and the other half over dinner. Frequently more after dinner. I have never watched much TV. Don't even have one right now. So far today, I have read two theses on logic, half a dozen papers on logic and half of a Brad Thor (Hidden Order). Yes, I have had enough time to read 20,000 books. I will frequently find an author I haven't read before (latest, Brad Thor - so far, all of them are excellent) and buy all of their books and read them all, back to back. I am currently reading about a half-dozen books - some online and some physical. I stopped buying magazines several decades ago. The stories are just too short. Even entire books tend to be too short. I really like a good, well-plotted series. Before I retired, I typically spent several hundred dollars per week at various bookstores and online. I had one bookstore clerk tell me that I was buying too many books! I categorize my books by the room, not by the bookshelf or even book case. Sure, I have read some "classics". I have read some Shakespeare (none of which impressed me), all of H.G. Wells books, Sherlock Holmes, etc.. The H.G. Wells books are dated but pretty good for early teens. I love Sherlock Holmes, including the modern takeoffs. But, just because an author published books 150 years ago, and their books are now "classics" does NOT make them good books! I have much higher standards than most "classics" can meet. I especially loathe Dickens' books. I have (unfortunately) read several and have not found a single one worth reading. Even worse is the "Great Gatsby" and "Lord of the Flies". Yes, I have read both "Pride and Prejudice" and "Sense and Sensibility" by Jane Austen. Not bad, but there are much better romances written today. How can there not be? In the 1800's there were only a few authors, outside of the "penny dreadfuls" (which I have never seen, but would like to). Now, there are 100s of thousands of authors. Even if 99.9% of them are wasting ink - that still leaves 100s who are turning out incredibly good books. I don't judge a book by when or by whom it was written. I judge a book by how I like it, how simplistic or complex it is (excessively complex does not necessarily
-
I read 55. I didn't count those that I started, and put down as unreadable (by me anyway), like Ulysses, Cold Comfort Farm, Confederacy of Dunces and others). There were quite a few books on the list I would never read (Dan Brown, Margaret Attwood, Ian McEwan) because reviews warn me off (often by reviewers who like the books). The review of "The Da Vinci Code" was so fall down funny that when I did try to read the Da Vinci Code, I just had to put it down from laughing. And there are several on the list that I wont read, having read other books by that author (such as Gabriel Garcia Marquez).
Agreed, mine was also only the books I have in fact completely read through. Though I'm a bit less sensitive to reviews. But I can definitely say I agree fully about Dan Brown ... most of the stuff in Da Vinci Code is so far fetched or outright impossible that it becomes a satire without his intent. Which is why I continued reading it - saw it as a comedy instead of a mystery/fantasy-adventure. Actually, after reading it I came across a satire based on it - exactly making fun of those "stupid" concepts Dan "invented". The De Villiers Code[^] I actually re-read Da Vinci afterwards, and found new places to laugh at since the De Villiers Code indicated stuff I missed the first time round. And thus in turn I then went and read equally stupid stuff from Dan Brown like Angels & Demons, The Lost Symbol & Digital Fortress. Again - I needed to see it as comical satire, else I'd have become disgusted by it.
-
I agree with you about Dan Brown (one of God's little jokes on the ignorant readership of today). But chucking in a whole bunch of non-English authors is coming it a bit strong. Also, keep in mind that, to English-speaking readers, only Russian and Japanese novelists write convincingly. Romance language authors, in particular, are stuck in a kind of "picaresque", broad, and psychologically naive mode. Not because they lack skill, but because that mode is most conducive to sending the clunky political messages which they believe is the purpose of novel writing. Bar those South Americans who are positively influenced by Borges, of course.
Robert g Blair wrote:
But chucking in a whole bunch of non-English authors is coming it a bit strong.
Yes it is - as is implicitly relegating all non English people in the lowest ranks.
Robert g Blair wrote:
Romance language authors, in particular, are stuck in a kind of "picaresque", broad, and psychologically naive mode. Not because they lack skill, but because that mode is most conducive to sending the clunky political messages which they believe is the purpose of novel writing.
I totally agree with this observation, and that's why I read a lot of non Italian books!
Geek code v 3.12 { GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X } If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
-
"least one book a week since my 10th birthday" Never mind the quality, feel the width!
