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."
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.
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
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
I'd say the opposite, the dictionary is the combination of all books and writings in to a single entity. The dictionary never introduces a new word.
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.
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