Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: What Are the Books Everyone Should Read?
dpu writes "Part of my New Year's resolution is to encourage reading as a hobby in those around me — especially my friends' children (ages 2 to 22), but my wife and I as well. There is a lot of 'classic' literature out there I'm familiar with, and will be promoting to the short masses here (Fahrenheit 451, To Kill A Mockingbird, In The Heat of the Night, Huckleberry Finn, Cryptonomicon, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, A Wrinkle In Time, When Rabbit Howls, etc.), but I know many of you are much better read than I am. What recommendations would you make? What are the books that everyone should read? I don't care if it's been banned by schools, burned by communists, or illuminated by 15th century monks. If you think everyone around you should read it, I'd love to know about it."
But really, make sure The Bible is on the list. Actually having read it opens up a tremendous world of understanding of other art and literature, regardless of one's religion.
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
GÃdel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid
Godel, Escher, Bach is not a simple read. The ideas are complex and the logic subtle. But it is a completely satisfying book, and reading it is one of those rare experiences when you leave feeling smarter than when you started.
its true, though I felt like a complete simpleton after reading it - its an awesome piece of writing. Its not something to read casually though, you're gonna have to think, a lot.
Animal Farm
Just as relevent now.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
by Richard Adams. I truly believe it helps people build empathy, and sympathize with animals and understand how frail and exposed they really are.
Signature intentionally left blank.
And then read Christopher Hitchens' "God is Not Great" for an opposing point of view
If someone tells you it changed their life, I'd just stop talking to them.
If someone told me any book changed their life, I'd start talking to them to find out more. If anything, such an event always makes for great conversation.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
8: Atlas Shrugged (one should sometimes read stuff just to show the errors in thought to boost critical thinking.) 9: Communist Manifesto (same as #8) 10: Wealth of Nations (same as #8 and #9)
I'd recommend those to any young person. Not just to show errors, but also to be exposed to ideas that one rarely encounters in the classroom (YYMV per country). This can help to translate "deep down feelings" into a set of core values, which helps one to think critically about ones own convictions.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I think Marx's Capital has aged somewhat better, in part because it's less a proposal of what to do, and more just a detailed analysis of how capitalism works. You can take that analysis and do whatever you want with it (embrace it, oppose it, etc.), but as an analysis it has a lot of interesting stuff.
The Communist Manifesto is interesting as history and rhetoric, but it's from a completely different context. Some of the stuff in it no longer makes much sense, e.g. even most modern Marxists are puzzled by the parts where it calls for a reversal of urbanization and a re-spreading of the population across the country. Other parts of it are now so mainstream that they're no longer seen as radical or communist, e.g. the part of the manifesto where it calls for abolition of child labor and introduction of free public schools.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
As I read a lot of books, I've heard this question asked a couple of times before, so I've thought about it for a while and come to the conclusion that there's not really one book everyone should read. People are different, and they take different things from what they read. There are few books I've enjoyed as much as The Name of the Rose, but I also understand that that's because I love both Sherlock Holmes and the debate over realism/nominalism concerning universals in the middle ages -- I wouldn't recommend it to anyone in my immediate family, because I know they would probably die of boredom before even finishing the introduction. They wouldn't get why the revelation at the end is so great, any of the philosophy, or even the Burgos-Borges link. The Name of the Rose's embeddedness in several different contexts contribute hugely to why I think it's such a good book, but if you lack those contexts it's really nothing more than an entropically extravagant piece of firewood. So perhaps "books I enjoyed" is not the right interpretation of "books everyone should read".
So perhaps non-fiction then. I'd love it if more people looked at the world scientifically, and there are definitely books that can teach you to do that. However, you can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn. You can make The Demon-Haunted World required reading, but you can't make someone actually think about what it says. Thinking is something you have to do by yourself, and if you don't want to think about something being forced to read a book isn't going to make you. So perhaps "books I think people should think like, or at least about" is not a proper interpretation of "books everyone should read" either.
What book someone should read depends on what they're interested in, what they already know, and what they've already read. If they like sci-fi they should read The Cyberiad, Neuromancer, Ted Chiang's short stories. If they like fantasy and have already read LotR, they should read Bridge of Birds and Perdido Street Station, to see what else can be done in that genre. If they like horror they should read Poe and Lovecraft. If they like thinking just because they should read Borges.
For every reader there's a book that they should read, but there's no book that everyone should read.
I care more about *how much* and *how often* you read, than *what* you read. If you read more than 50 books a year that tells me a lot more about you than the titles you read. I think everyone should read at least 20 books a year, with two or three genres of fiction and non-fiction represented. Once we get to that point, THEN we can argue what titles should be in the "canon".
This is not the middle ages, where a gentleman could return from university with a library of fifty or so books that'd do him for the rest of his life. There's just too much information in the world and entering the world to rely exclusively on a canonical list of titles. It's more important to be a habitual knowledge seeker who can take pleasure in reading.
And we need some kind of antidote to the 24 hour news cycle, in which the more people read or watch the less informed they become. That antidote is books, in large quantities.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
A Brave New World describes the current world much better than 1984 ever could. 1984 and Animal Farm are about Stalinism and control through fear. A Brave New World is about control through entertainment. The first is much easier to convince people to fight against; the latter is, apparently, impossible.
First, I don't see why Ayn is expected to not create fantastical characters in a work of fiction. Nobody would read it if it were just a mirror image of society.
Next, the book was not meant to be just a story that entertains. She felt very strongly about certain ideals since she transitioned from Communism to Capitalism, and she writes at the very edge of the continuum. You read it, you analyze it, you adopt the ideals that make sense to you and reject those that don't. Not sure why this concept is so foreign nowadays. I don't share her atheism, but I certainly share her ideals on capitalism.
I found the book very entertaining and highly thought-provoking. It's the only book I have read since university where I have taken copious notes whilst reading it.
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
There are a number of failed societies: The USSR and North Korea come to mind. Also the PRC.
Doing something in the name of non-religious dogma such as Communism is not the same thing as doing something in the name of Atheism. When I root for my favorite football team I am not doing it in the name of Atheism just because I happen to be an atheist. But when I root for the US team in the Olympics I am doing it in the name of patriotism or nationalism.
What matters is why someone is doing what they are doing. My atheism is only responsible for things I do in the name of atheism, not everything I do just because I have no religion. And just about the only thing I do in the name of atheism is defend why it is the only rational viewpoint to have, or advocate why organized religion is no longer necessary (not trying to start that debate in this thread, just pointing out some actions I perform because of my atheist beliefs). These are the only things you can blame my atheism for.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Of course you are right. I see precious little evidence that the Bible has influenced society much at all, except to give people stuff to fight about. Part 1 is about making sure your enemy is smote and placed beneath you and don't eat pork or have buttsex and Part 2 is all about, "forget Part 1".
And as soon as some Christian leader starts to actually take the Christ stuff seriously, like Pope Francis, all the Christians start getting mad at him for being a commie. Go figure.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Before you start reading anything, do read Sagan's Demon-Haunted World first. It's a good introduction into telling lies and bullshit apart from stuff you can believe. I think scepticism and logic and scientific method are very lacking from today's education and peoples minds. This book takes a small step in fixing that.
As for other books worth reading- other comments have plenty of good suggestions.
--Coder
As an atheist I often recommend that my religious friend read the bible. Most haven't read the "good book", and most find actually reading it a much better argument against being religious than anything I could tell them.
Anarchists never rule