Posted on 09/18/2008 6:41:41 PM PDT by PotatoHeadMick
Recommended lists of ‘essential’ reading are the most pernicious ‘to do’ lists of all. Lists of physical achievements or magical holiday destinations or wonderful restaurants or fabulous hotels make you feel like your life has been wasted; a list of great books you should have read makes you feel like your brain has been wasted. Most people embarking on a journey into a new book will feel they have to hack through a hundred pages of dense undergrowth before their conscience will allow them to give it up as a lost cause. But how many people feel secure enough in their own judgment even to do that? How many times have we all ploughed on to the end to find there’s actually no treasure after all? A book, even a useless one, can take several days out of your life so it’s a big investment. The best way to fight the massed ranks of recommended books is with an offensively glib and, if possible, ill-informed reason for not bothering with them.
(Excerpt) Read more at entertainment.timesonline.co.uk ...
He must work for Obama (or more likely the guy with the high IP, Biden). How stupid. “À la Recherche du Temps Perdu – Marcel Proust”, and the Iliad are fabulous.
How can LOTR be on the list? Can the dudes that suggested these books even read?
A great idea for an article. Too bad he screwed it up by deriding Tolkien and Homer. Maybe this guy should be writing for Cracked or Mad Magazine.
Sounds like a real twit.
Actually he’s right not to read three of these books:
6: The Dice Man – Luke Reinhart
5: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas – Hunter S Thompson
4: The Beauty Myth – Naomi Wolff
But he’s wrong about the rest of them. Very wrong. Except maybe À la Recherche du Temps Perdu. I think you can get away with reading the first volume, and stop there.
I’ve read Tolkien & Hemingway and enjoyed it, so I don’t totally agree with his opinion, though I have no inclination to waste time with Naomi Wolff.
I can't. The Times Online is on my list of 10 newspapers not to read before I die.
The movies were rather awful as well.
He is a TWIT. Don’t read Tolstoy or Austen? To hell with that nonsense.
Funny, but you do realize that this is the London Times, not the NY Times, right?
(11) the audacity of hope
(12) dreams of my father (lotsa women, lotsa kids)
I don't think Ulysses is a book for everyone, but I wouldn't dismiss it either.
The Illiad and War and Peace are both extremely valuable. Hemingway isn't my favorite, but I wouldn't put it on the "not read" list.
Being mentioned with Hemingway, Homer and Proust is really going to go to Naomi Wolff’s airhead.
Austen must be on the top ten list of conservative authors.
With the exception of Tolkien (especially!), Tolstoy and Austen, I agree with the twit.
The author certainly comes across as a snobbish boor I’d walk a mile to avoid spending time with.
Gee Wally...you mean that "uk" in the link doesn't stand for "Uppity Know-it-all"?
Of course, one has to be literate so maybe that's his problem.
Books I hated in high school but now appreciate:
1. 1984
2. Animal Farm
3. Brave New World.
All three of these sensitized and prepared me for modern-day liberalism.
Beat ya by 0.000001 of a second!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.