Book Selections: Why That book, and not This book

[John Lark]

Literary criticism, vulgar acquisition, and ‘Being’; in a sense, there is no difference; each exudes, emanates and radiates, a certain cocksureness that is, within reason, inexplicable; each nonchalantly dwells in a turbulent river of phenomenology and mimesis, a tumultuous liquid abyss—which provides only superficial nourishment for more acute minds, and, conversely, an inescapable impediment of depth—and each, thus, is inherently illusive, of itself and for itself.

Literary theory, in contrast, is a much more delightful affair, a sunny day, a yellow brick road, an ice cream sundae; it propounds, exposits, and expatiates on every aspect of language, its discontents, and its implications, categorically, if so, conservatively and modestly; certainly a venture for the more acutely minded, and patience is virtue. […]

A reader of today (perhaps of any day) however, is left in a bit of a predicament. Of the millions upon millions of books in existence, what is one to read?

Propositions and Expositions:

The Great Books Tradition and Criticisms (Aristophanes, Jonathan Swift, and Cervantes, as amongst the more profound inductees)

Best Selling Lists and Criticisms (—Indeed)

The Individual Constitution and Subsequent Derivations, including Inclinations

Hello and hi; I believe the title is quite informative, so,


Books (a book being a sort of work of prose, bound together between hard or soft covers and distributed by means of a book shop); of the 200 or so titles you are aware of, how do you, or how did you, prioritise which to read first, and as such, why?


There are numerous genres of books, numerous and multifarious topics, themes, and subject matters; are there perhaps a few you absolutely do not wish to read, or even, say, have an underlying, yet conscious, contempt for?


Lastly: the matter of authority. It is difficult to remain completely autonomous in regards to selecting books; either you are told you would like a certain book, and thus read it, or you presume you would like a certain book, and thus read it. The presumption itself is derived from various sources; perhaps from an enticing synopsis, perhaps from general critical acclaim, perhaps from hitherto mass popularity; each, as such, is an authority for argument’s sake. Who is your authority?


It could be a friend, who has very similar interests, a literary critic you are especially fond of, the masses (who seem to agree on a lot of things), Erotic Romance novels, or even Harvard University.


(Though the topics are rather set, I would like to see a degree of elasticity in responses, a degree of freedom as such; reply not merely succinctly, but thoughtfully)

[kelby_lake]

There are certain words I look for in a blurb- and the cover helps a lot too. Although sometimes I have planned to read it prior to seeing those two things.

[mal4mac]

There are numerous genres of books, numerous and multifarious topics, themes, and subject matters; are there perhaps a few you absolutely do not wish to read, or even, say, have an underlying, yet conscious, contempt for?


Kant, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, the Bible and (especially) the industries that surround them. They are works of little or no aesthetic value* and accessing their content is like searching for gems in a giant tar pit. Their secondary commentators are worse. At least Heidegger and Kant created a few gems. Their acolytes just add more tar...**

*Abut 1/6 of the Bible may have aesthetic value

** There are the odd exceptions like Bryan Magee ("Confessions of a Philosopher"). But even he encourages people to dive into the tar pit. Don't listen. Keep away from the tar pit!



Who is your authority?


Harold Bloom - The Western Canon, etc. He encourages you to keep away from the tar pit, and recommends some good books.

[dfloyd]

to read and assimilate the book in question. As you mature, your ability to make good selections grows. What yu like today may appear sophomoric tomorrow. The intellect is nurtured by by continually being upgraded by new and different readings. What seems hard to read today will seem easy tomorrow as your intellect grows and your tastes are refined.

[higley]

I think it works the same way as taste--you have an instinctive feel for what you like and what you don't. Sometimes you try something you wouldn't normally, whether out of politeness or obligation or whatever, and find that you love it, and sometimes you try one along the lines of what you've liked before and find that it doesn't really measure up. Personally I scout subject matter and every once in a while make myself read something that's different, and discover I can't put it down.

[John Lark]

Kant, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, the Bible and (especially) the industries that surround them. They are works of little or no aesthetic value* and accessing their content is like searching for gems in a giant tar pit. Their secondary commentators are worse. At least Heidegger and Kant created a few gems. Their acolytes just add more tar...**

*Abut 1/6 of the Bible may have aesthetic value

** There are the odd exceptions like Bryan Magee ("Confessions of a Philosopher"). But even he encourages people to dive into the tar pit. Don't listen. Keep away from the tar pit!

I notice those are all philosophers you have listed (who all also happen to be German); now, perhaps this is just me, but I wasn't aware philosophy was studied merely for its aesthetic value; I had thought studies were based a little more on the value of its innovative insights, judgements, perceptions, points of view, formulations, and conclusions --


Kant's written works generally aren't worth reading, as they obscure rather than--or more than--illuminate his philosophy, but his Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, is relatively straightforward (by his standards), and outlines his contribution to epistemology categorically; and as it is true that judgements arrived at independently in philosophical circles are more revered than those derived merely from predecessors, it is certainly a work worth reviewing -- that is, of course, if one has an honest and ardent interest in philosophy.

I haven't read any Heidegger, but I am aware he was influenced quite strongly by Kierkegaard--who I believe is nowhere mentioned in Bloom's Western Canon, in which case, he has missed a mountain--so there is probably a hurricane of intentional obfuscation in his work. But again, he is an author, strictly, for the more philosophically inclined (particularly those continently inclined); it's almost absurd to begin reading him if one is not so.

Wittgenstein, unlike the other two, was a logician, so I agree that there is very little aesthetic value in his work, but it can hardly be denied that he is amongst the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, and that his contributions to the philosophy of language have greatly increased our understanding in many other notable disciplines. (I would also argue that he is filled with far more gems than the other two, but that would require a bit of a lucubration, so I'll pass)


Bryan Magee is a good writer, but he does have the tendency to oversimplify matters, which, in his defence, he does seem to acknowledge; suggested by his recommendation of original texts, which I myself advocate, but only if one does so with a degree of sense.

(1/6 of the Bible is quite a lot of text; I would say 1/20 -- which is still quite a lot)


Harold Bloom - The Western Canon, etc. He encourages you to keep away from the tar pit, and recommends some good books.

How far does his authority extend?

Have you ever disliked a book Bloom has recommended, or liked a book Bloom has vehemently mocked?



(Oh, and do you actually think he has read all those books in his canon, I mean, that's one fairly long list)

[mono]

Kant, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, the Bible and (especially) the industries that surround them. They are works of little or no aesthetic value* and accessing their content is like searching for gems in a giant tar pit. Their secondary commentators are worse. At least Heidegger and Kant created a few gems. Their acolytes just add more tar...**

*Abut 1/6 of the Bible may have aesthetic value

** There are the odd exceptions like Bryan Magee ("Confessions of a Philosopher"). But even he encourages people to dive into the tar pit. Don't listen. Keep away from the tar pit!
I think it important to take into account the writers' intentions; of course Kant, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein's works have little to no aesthetic value, because I doubt they intended upon writing aesthetically. Though I feel far more familiar with Kant out of the three (I have read selections of Heidegger, but no Wittgenstein), he reads with an undeniable density that, I agree, contains no aesthetics, as opposed to the Romantic poets, for one example, when a beauty of a work depended much upon how it sounded recited - personally, I cannot recall the last Critique of Pure Reason recital I attended . . . probably because they do not occur. Claiming that you find neither of the philosopher's works aesthetically pleasing states little, considering they did not likely attempt to appear that way; one could say the same of a textbook on economics, but it need not insult the content.
Unlike most literary, and not philosophical, writers, thinkers like Kant took the idea of aesthetics deeper, in Critique of Judgment, not creating something beautiful, but instead discovering why we commonly think things, including literature (which he considered the most sublime of all arts), beautiful or aesthetically pleasing. I agree, he reads with no beauty at all, and neither does Heidegger, but, for one, I prefer not only reading the words, and how aesthetically pleasing they sound, but also what they say.

[mal4mac]

... I wasn't aware philosophy was studied merely for its aesthetic value; I had thought studies were based a little more on the value of its innovative insights, judgements, perceptions, points of view, formulations, and conclusions

Having wrestled with Kant & Heidegger I'm suggesting that the experience was not worth it on any level. Unles syou like wrestling in a tar pit :-)

You seem to be agreeing the works have no aesthetic value. I would argue the insights, etc., are much better presented by (some!) other writers, i.e., those who can write plain English - not necessarily English of great aesthetic value but just English that gets the ideas across with mountains of obfuscating verbiage.



... Kierkegaard--who I believe is nowhere mentioned in Bloom's Western Canon...


He is, look in the index! He also appears in Genius, so he makes Bloom's top 100 writers...



Wittgenstein... can hardly be denied that he is amongst the greatest philosophers of the 20th century...


A.C. Grayling, a leading conetemoprary philosopher, argues in "Wittgenstein: A Very Short Introduction" that Wittgenstein is not a greatly influential presence in twentieth-century philosophy. Most of what has happened in philosophy since his time consists exactly in what his writings proscribe: systematic investigation of ‘problems of philosophy’ which he says will vanish. Modern philosophers are far more influenced by the philosophical legacy of Frege and Russell.

Where does Bryan Magee oversimplify matters, and where does he acknowledge this? In "Confessions" he does say he doesn't go into every fine point of Kant's philosophy, and recommends that you read Kant to get every point. The secondary material is so awful that you can see why he says this! So if you have a inclination for sloshing around in a tar pit to collect minor gems, try raw Kant or Heidegger. I think Magee adequately polished up the essential major, gems. So I'm going to pursue better reading...



Have you ever disliked a book Bloom has recommended, or liked a book Bloom has vehemently mocked?


I disliked Don Quixote first time I tried it, but loved it the second time through. So I'm not sure about other books I have given up on that Bloom strongly recommends (e.g., Joyce's Ulysses, and Proust's "Remebrance...")

I'm building up to attempting Ulysses again, as I now realise that one needs a lot of help with some works - although Don Quixote just needed a good translation (Grossman - as recommended by Bloom...)

I gave up on de Lillo's Underworld, which Bloom rates. I'm not really that tempted to give it a second chance.

[balehead]

When I am faced with a stack of books, and must choose which to read first, I struggle not to revert to my childhood and "eeni-meeni-miney-mo" between them, but eventually my decision comes down to which ones i think I'll need time to savour and mull over, and which ones are more light reading and don't require much brain-power ... and then i decide what kind of mood I'm in (thoughtful or otherwise), and get stuck in

[John Lark]

mal4mac,

I would rather use a jigsaw puzzle allegory (that is, instead of a tar pit).

Such works consist of numerous pieces (probably too many), and are certainly a challenge to put together, but, their supplements are merely a fragmentary assimilation. Sure, these may reveal the whole picture, but with only them, you'll never experience the full liveliness and vivacity emanated by the impression of the completed product.

And (to digress slightly), this is where one may discover something about oneself; do I attempt a puzzle just to see its final form, or do I attempt a puzzle because I enjoy sifting, arranging, and connecting puzzle pieces [with each other]?



Swift, even as early as the 18th Century, was complaining about how many useless books there were, and fearing their uncontrollable propagation; now I'm not one of those old, rigid, robust, and rotund elitists, but...

'… when all join together to make everything easier in every way, there remains only one possible danger, namely, the danger that the easiness would become so great that it would become all too easy.' (-- Concluding Unscientific Postscript)

[isidro]

I usually stick only to cannon works and authors, since I am most familiar with them and the more you read of them the more you realize there is more to read. I also eventually want to pursue a masters and PhD in lit so these are the required reading materials. However, while I am listening to Dickens's Little Dorrit in the car, I also have interests elsewhere am reading Another Day in the Frontal Lobe about neurosurgery by candlelight. I for some reason never take advice from friends, unless they are also literature buffs, have spent a great deal of time in the lecture hall and have the same taste I do.

[mal4mac]

I would rather use a jigsaw puzzle allegory (that is, instead of a tar pit).



Jigsaw puzzles are fun. "Tar pit" is the best metaphor I can come up with after my struggles with Kant's first critique - I put more effort into studying this than I did into studying the advanced quantum physics text in my physics degree - in comparison the quantum text was but a muddy puddle.

Jigsaw puzzle pieces fit together smoothly. Maybe Kant can be compared to a jigsaw puzzle where the edges are jagged and the colours don't blend as they should - but that's starting to sound like a tar pit.

With jigsaw puzzles there is one straightforward solution and everyone with an ounce of intelligence can complete them, and agree on the solution!

But just look at the disagreement over philosophers like Kant and Heidegger. Many philosophers think they are not worth reading, other say they are great philosophers. They are groping about in a tar pit, sometimes one says 'here's a gem'. Their fellow gropers say 'No! that's just congealed mud..."


...liveliness and vivacity

Have you read Kant's first critique? I've never heard even his greatest admirers describe him as "lively and vivacious"! I'd describe him as dull as dishwater and as vivacious as a geriatric hippo. Of course there are gems in the dish water, but you have to shift that hippo before you can grope for them in the sludge... Let Magee show you the gems and then go read something more fun...



'… when all join together to make everything easier in every way, there remains only one possible danger, namely, the danger that the easiness would become so great that it would become all too easy.' (-- Concluding Unscientific Postscript)

Einstein said something like "make it as simple as possible, but not too simple." Kant didn't listen. Other "difficult" authors shouldn't be simplified - translating Shakespeare into modern prose would be a simplification too far...