[stylin_geek]

I was thinking about starting a thread listing "The Worst Books Hyped as Classics," with the first book, on my list, being "The Catcher in the Rye." Count me in on the FR Book Club. By the way, I have read "Shane" already, several times. Great book. However, if you feel it is necessary I read it again, I will happily comply. In fact, I think I will read it again.

[PJ-Comix]

I read Shane before but I'll be reading it again because I'm sure I forgot a lot of what was in there. I do remember that it was the BEST Western (without really feeling like part of that genre) that I ever read. Which is why I chose it.

[PJ-Comix]

I was thinking about starting a thread listing "The Worst Books Hyped as Classics," with the first book, on my list, being "The Catcher in the Rye."

Interesting fact. Salinger chose the name "Holden Caulfield" from the two stars of a postwar comedy movie. The stars were William Holden and Joan Caulfield. I don't remember the name of the movie right now but I believe Salinger chose that movie and the stars' names because the movie comedy was very middle America.

[PJ-Comix]

Sometimes I agree with a book's premise but becauuse it was poorly written I won't be recommending it. A good example is Blood Trail. It had an important message in there somewhere buried under the poor writing. Sometimes authors get so carried away with their messages that they forget the books have to be INTERESTING. Atlas Shrugged had a good message that just didn't get out to many people because of all the speechifying by folks with wooden personalities. Rand had much better books when she wasn't slamming folks with her message.