If you could have and re-read only one book?

[gruntingslime]

Which book would it be? I also wonder if it would also be your favorite book? Also I wonder why you would choose that book.

It's a hard question, but off the top of my head I would probably say The Little Prince. It's not my favorite book, but it always makes me feel happy which isn't that common. It also feels like more than a book, which I can't explain, just holding it in my hand it feels like I'm holding some important tool.

Second I would choose Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. It's not my favorite book either, but I like it a lot every time I read it, and again it feels like more of an "artifact" than a book...

[dafydd manton]

Without doubt, and not because it's a great work of literature, although it is incredibly well written, but joyously funny, The Alan Coren Omnibus. The very best works of the very best comic writer, who is sadly no longer with us.

[dfloyd]

I would not have access to any more books, and would have only this one, now and in the future, I would choose The Iliad in the Alexander Pope translation.

"Yes, I was in Rome last year and, I saw the Pope. He was a nice old man but, I didn't care for his The Iliad."

[Adagio]

It's got to be The Sound and the Fury for me.

[JBI]

Siku quanshu or Complete Library in Four Branches of Literature - if we can count that, though I doubt anyone can read the whole book in one lifetime. At a couple million pages, I'd have Borges' Library of Babel in the palm of my hand - or rather in quite a few volumes.

[Dimitra]

Swann's way because it is the most beautiful book I have read and if everything else was lost that would be the one it would pain me the most to be parted from.

[Desolation]

Either Ulysses by James Joyce, because I might actually understand it if it were the only book I read for the rest of my life, or Remembrance of Things Past by Marcel Proust, because it so long that I wouldn't have time to read anything else anyways.

[The Comedian]

I'd take Walden. I've read the thing like 20 times already and I never get sick of it. A lot of people think it's "boring", but I love it. In re-reading it I always find a new way of seeing the book and the author: sometimes I think it's :lol: funny, other times it makes me want to build a fort in my back yard, other times it makes me re-evaluate what I value and what I work for, and still other times it makes me want to write a better sentence.

I guess I like Walden so much (and would take it as the one book that I would have at the sacrifice of all others) because it helps me be a better human being, a better man who lives in this world. Right here. And it's so easy to get off track. . . .so hard to find our way again.

I can make up all sorts of fun stories and characters, so a novel -- any novel -- for me would be pretty much out of the question.

[mal4mac]

Either Ulysses by James Joyce... Remembrance of Things Past by Marcel Proust.

Very good choices, I'd enjoy making a bonfire out of them.

[blazeofglory]

In fact the book I have tried to complete and tried out many times is Ulysses. I know I may never completely comprehend this book given its size, content, philosophical leanings, art and the like. I like every word of it, the structural beauty of it. And I believe once I can fully comprehend the book I can proficiently present myself as a writer. As such I may read the book doggedly and with complicity. Maybe this is my dream or the endeavour is sheer foolishness or snobbery but I cannot turn away from the fascination

[Tallon]

Anna Karenina or The Brothers Karamazov. Great books and looooooong :P .

[punk sheep]

Les Misérables. I read it in English years ago, and now I'm reading every chapter in French three times, and listening to a 67-hour recording. It's unlikely that there will ever be another book that gets this kind of attention from me.

[pooteeweet]

The Great Gatsby

[pooteeweet]

In fact the book I have tried to complete and tried out many times is Ulysses. I know I may never completely comprehend this book given its size, content, philosophical leanings, art and the like. I like every word of it, the structural beauty of it. And I believe once I can fully comprehend the book I can proficiently present myself as a writer. As such I may read the book doggedly and with complicity. Maybe this is my dream or the endeavour is sheer foolishness or snobbery but I cannot turn away from the fascination

I agree with you -- this is a novel which has been on my shelf for the past year and I think it would be better to take a seminar class on -- to spend an entire semester studying this novel, with my classmates and professor, I think, would be the best way for me to tackle this.

[stlukesguild]

A single book? Impossible!:nonod:

Of course, like JBI, I'd look to cheat the limitation by choosing some great anthology: the Collected Works of Shakespeare, the complete Arabian Night's Entertainments or Shanameh... or even the Bible. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine having something as slight as The Little Prince or even The Sound and the Fury as my sole reading material.

[gruntingslime]

I too feel like it would be nearly impossible to give up any of my books. My collection is already insanely large and I have uncontrollable twitches and urges to continue expanding it, but now I'm beginning to have anxiety every time I look at my shelf because I want to read everything at once, and in fact I am in the middle of about 4 or 5 books right now... just the thought of it gives me a headache, so I am having wild fantasies about being rid of all my books and taking off drifting with only one or two under my arm.

I previously thought Bruno Schulz's The Street of Crocodiles would be the one single book for me but, thought it's not incomprehensible, it doesn't allow for such a smooth flow in my thought process. I can appreciate the nobility of wanting to pick a book like Ulysses, not because it makes you seem smarter, but I'm sure there's an implication to want to examine the text and really take from it all you can, which I think you can do with any book (whether the connections you make are imaginary or not).

I'm actually really interested in a lot of these suggestions, even if its against my original purpose (and actually that I'd like to expand my collection).

So I can see why some would take to take their whole collection with them, wheel it behind them in a cart, but I am working out a fantasy of being rid of all possessions, though even before the fact I am thinking to cheat and carry at least one.

I can also see the point of taking along a book like Ulysses, but I can also sympathize with the point of view of burning it. My thoughts are already very tangled and confused and give me headaches, which is partly the reason why I want to be rid of my things.

I'd still like to know what more people would take, and whether it was their favourite book and the reason why they would choose it.

[blazeofglory]

I liken reading Ulysses to climbing Mt. Everest. Many know it is a staggering mania to think about climbing Everest, and many fail in the endeavour, yet the top always beguiles you. Many died and there is no sureness you will return, but we will do it epically.

We always are fascinated by the beyond our reach allure. I know reading Ulysses for me is an unworkable project. I am to begin with from a non English background and my cultural upbringing is entirely different and the settings of the book can never be common to me, but despite all these oddities I take on the project of reading the book, maybe in my life time I will complete it

[billl]

Great post, Blaze. Perhaps you knew this when you posted, but for many modern readers (even native speakers) there are many cultural and period challenges in the language of Ulysses.

[janesmith]

Jude the Obscure

[zoolane]

'Nobody's child' Author micheal Seed and Clive Barker 'Weavewold'

[L.M. The Third]

Les Misérables. I read it in English years ago, and now I'm reading every chapter in French three times, and listening to a 67-hour recording. It's unlikely that there will ever be another book that gets this kind of attention from me.

Are you saying that an unabridged recording is 67 hours? Wow!

[punk sheep]

Are you saying that an unabridged recording is 67 hours? Wow!

Yep, all done by one anonymous unpaid volunteer (username "Pomme" (http://www.litteratureaudio.com/livre-audio-gratuit-mp3/hugo-victor-les-miserables.html)). Pretty awesome.

[L.M. The Third]

Yep, all done by one anonymous unpaid volunteer (username "Pomme" (http://www.litteratureaudio.com/livre-audio-gratuit-mp3/hugo-victor-les-miserables.html)). Pretty awesome.

So is the reading well done? Oh, it seems to be in French. Too bad. I've been listening to a much abridged edition. But I don't like abridgments, and would like to get an audio book of the whole thing.

In answer to the OP: I'd like to be able to have an extensive Shakespeare edition. But my other choice would be the Bible. Not out of any tremendous religiosity, but just because there's so much to it. It includes poetry, philosophy, biography, history, and narrative on anything one can imagine. It has a lot of scope for imagination.

If I was to be stuck on a desert island for only a few months, I would take the dictionary, and when I came back to civilization, everyone would think I'd learned a new language.

[ennison]

"The Uttermost Part of The Earth" - Estaban Lucas Bridges

[Desolation]

I previously thought Bruno Schulz's The Street of Crocodiles would be the one single book for me but, thought it's not incomprehensible, it doesn't allow for such a smooth flow in my thought process
That's a great one. It's way too short for lifelong reading material, though. The language requires several readings, but after a while the beauty of people turning into birds and roaches would lose its edge.

Realistically, I'd probably pick the 1000+ page Gonzo Anthology by Hunter S. Thompson over Joyce or Proust. I'd have no problem reading Thompson forever.

[gruntingslime]

I suppose it would be tough to find a book that you could grow with, which is I'm sure why a lot of people might choose religious texts. I would definitely like to find something that would help me look inside myself, but also something that was beautiful and filled me with feeling. I'm not sure if I've ever read and re-read a book that could constantly keep me thinking and feeling, or at least none that readily spring to mind.

[_Shannon_]

I think I'd pick some nice giant poetry anthology. I could read one a day, work on memorizing them, play games and switch them around....

or maybe A Dance To The Music of Time or A Remembrance of Things Past or some other multi-volume-but-supposed-to-be-one-book book.

[minstrelbard]

I'd probably pick "The Selected Poetry of Robinson Jeffers".

I love his language and his subjects, and the hardness of his vision will help steel me for a life with only one book.

As far as fiction is concerned, I'd have to content myself with writing my own, I guess.

[ktr]

Of course, like JBI, I'd look to cheat the limitation by choosing some great anthology: the Collected Works of Shakespeare

this is the only acceptable answer. i'm also fairly certain that every author mentioned here would laugh in your face for picking him over shakespeare.

[minstrelbard]

this is the only acceptable answer. i'm also fairly certain that every author mentioned here would laugh in your face for picking him over shakespeare.

The only "acceptable" answer? :rolleyes:

I think we can all take it as a given that just about everybody would want Shakespeare. Maybe a Bible (at least as a literary reference) and an encyclopedia, too. I think the purpose of the question was to find out what kind of thing we'd like to read many times, beyond the very obvious stuff.

[ktr]

The only "acceptable" answer? :rolleyes:

I think we can all take it as a given that just about everybody would want Shakespeare. Maybe a Bible (at least as a literary reference) and an encyclopedia, too. I think the purpose of the question was to find out what kind of thing we'd like to read many times, beyond the very obvious stuff.

maybe you misread the question - if you could re-read ONE book.

as in singular. as in, you know, only one.

one

[minstrelbard]

maybe you misread the question - if you could re-read ONE book.

as in singular. as in, you know, only one.

one

Maybe you misread my answer. I said that everybody would probably pick Shakespeare. So that answers the question, which, I implied, was rather boring if we're going to take it that literally, because it doesn't provoke any discussion. The more interesting question is, what book would you pick if you couldn't pick Shakespeare or the Bible?

[Scheherazade]

~

Please do not personalise your arguments.

~

[Alexander III]

I dont see how Shakespeare is the absolute answer in any way, you just made your self look foolish by writing that.

As for me I would select, a large collection of Shelley's poems

[ktr]

Which book would it be? I also wonder if it would also be your favorite book? Also I wonder why you would choose that book.

It's a hard question, but off the top of my head I would probably say The Little Prince. It's not my favorite book, but it always makes me feel happy which isn't that common.


I think the purpose of the question was to find out what kind of thing we'd like to read many times, beyond the very obvious stuff.

Maybe you're just not good at reading. If that were the question, I think the OP would have worded it like.... “Beyond all the obvious answers like Shakespeare and the bible, if you could only re-read one book over and over, what would it be.”

Without your little stipulation there is room for discussion, there is no need to alter the question – If you have an answer other than Shakespeare, feel free to propose and discuss, but to say you knew what gruntingslime really meant is just kind of laughably inane.


I dont see how Shakespeare is the absolute answer in any way, you just made your self look foolish by writing that.

As for me I would select, a large collection of Shelley's poems

I mean – if you were realllly limited to one author, I see no reason for not picking the best one. But of course, I'm foolish.

[PeterL]

I have been thinking about this for a little while, and I concluded that I would have to satisfy myself with a complete encyclopedia, 30 or more volumes, etc. Works of fiction are wonderful things, but every now and then I need to do something useful. The articles on authors and their books would allow me to recreate the novels in my mind.

[PeterL]

I don't remember where I read the study, but I encountered something along those lines that was a little broader. A number of people were tested. Then they were asked to estimate their results. The people who performed the worst said that they did very well. The people who performed the best said that they did OK.The people in the average range said that they had done fair. That result just backs up what Dunning claimed, but it define things a little better, I think.

[ktr]

I don't remember where I read the study, but I encountered something along those lines that was a little broader. A number of people were tested. Then they were asked to estimate their results. The people who performed the worst said that they did very well. The people who performed the best said that they did OK.The people in the average range said that they had done fair. That result just backs up what Dunning claimed, but it define things a little better, I think.

this?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702783/

[PeterL]

this?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702783/

could be

[Alexander III]

That study is interesting and makes sense, thanks for sharing.

But the comparison of that study to the judgment of art is flawed, in grammar and such question of the study the answer is either yes or no, or it is fixed. Art is much more like philosophy were both Yes and No are correct, rather is is how you support you answer of Yes or No which is what is given value, hence debate and discussion.

Now if someone said that Shakespeare was not a good writer and that Dan Brown was much better (sorry to use the Dan Brown name, first one which sprang to mind), then yes they would be somewhat wrong, as they have not understood the beauty of Shakespeare.

However when comparing the greats, all men/women of proven value, that is when there can be no correct answer, for if there were it would no longer be art.

Besides calling Shakespeare the greatest, is plausible, but that defines the person whom said that statement as to be ignorant in literature outside of english. Firstly in europe there is Dante to consider, Dante and Shakespeare being considered the two peaks of European literary achievement.

Then one could also consider eastern literature which is far more ancient than ours and contains I am sure a wealth of genius, though in this regard I am ignorant as I have never read the works of the east, I do however know that my knowledge is very limited globally.

Thus this is why statements like, Shakespeare is the only correct answer, make little sense and inhibit the scope of this discussion which was created to hear and debate views.

Sorry OP if I derailed the thread, but I thought it was important for me to to stroke my ego by arguing a bit and winning said argument, yes I enjoy stroking the ego.

:)

[Desolation]

Wow. This whole Shakespeare thing is painful. It really turns me off of the Bard.

There's no objectivity when it comes to personal taste. You might be able to add objectivity to talent (MAYBE), but personal taste is going to trump objective standards every time when it comes to the individual. Some individuals might choose Shakespeare in this kind of discussion, and I hope that it's because they are genuinely moved by his work and not because they think they have to because he's "the best." Some people, most people, will probably choose someone else, and whatever they choose is every bit as valid.

[Babak Movahed]

That's a tough one I guess I would have to pick The Blind Owl because it is quite beautifully written and extremely complex. Even if I had to read it over and over again I wouldn't get bored of it considering I would find something new every time.

[Scheherazade]

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Some off-topic posts have been (and will be) removed without further warning.

[JBI]

I Somehow doubt everyone would pick Shakespeare. He is good, and one of the best authors, but if you went around the world, I don't think he would win.

For instance, critical consensus in China is that Story of Stone (Dream of the Red Chamber) by Cao Xueqin is the greatest novel ever. So if you took a poll, you may see that pop up more, given Chinese criticism's penchant for selection.

Likewise if you conducted the poll in French, you may find Zola, or Hugo, or Racine, or Balzac, or Baudelaire, or some other author pop up more frequently, given the French penchant for French authors and relative xenophobic stance on outside literature.

In the same vein, you may see a preference for another writer, like Ferdowsi pop his head up, being more relevant to a particular tradition.

In all honesty though, Dante's Comedia, as a single work, would rival I would argue even the best Shakespeare plays. As a whole Shakespeare has the benefit of a more prolific career, but as a single work, perhaps he isn't the best.

Then there is the fact that most people don't particularly like Shakespeare, or else, wouldn't want to spend their life reading him, given that, though the best maybe, he is not their favorite.

The whole idea is that there is no objective #1, and the argument for the #1 seems to be a penchant of Bardolators more than others - the need to exclaim the dominance of Shakespeare does nothing for Shakespeare, or the appreciation of Shakespeare.

In essence, Shakespeare's works speak for themselves. To hold him up as a super-god is counter-intuitive.

At the end of the day, you will realize that he isn't the most popular author, even amongst authors, though he is popular. Most authors, from my understanding, end up with works that personally speak to them - they may all point back to an extent toward Shakespeare, or major canons, but often they are mediocre authors, or people nobody reads anymore.

[IceM]

Siddhartha, easily. His message of patience and appreciation of nature to attain enlightenment seem more powerful to me than corresponding Romantic authors who attempted to preach the same message (not that Hesse was a Romantic; I don't know where he lies in literary time periods). It also seems increasingly pertinent today, where unabated ambition has distracted people from attaining understanding in an increasingly industrialized world.

At least that's how I see it.

[Kyriakos]

Difficult question. All books i have read and at some time liked were important in my development.

I guess any collection of De Maupassant's madness-themed stories would be good material to read and reflect upon.
If i had been asked 5 years ago i would have definately said Kafka's diaries, since at the time i was re-reading them all of the time. But i have changed my view of Kafka drammatically since then :)

[damondarkwalker]

I would be upset that I only had one, but I guess Kerouac's "Desolation Angels".

[mikemaster70]

I'm going to have to choose two for this one, those being Wuthering Heights and The Scarlet Letter.
Wuthering Heights is one of my favorite books, and although I can be a sucker for romance stories, I felt this was more than that. It had an essence of haunting to it, which I enjoy too.
The Scarlet Letter because I had to read the book for an English course of mine, but I absolutely loved it. I found what my teacher said to be true, that every time she rereads it for subsequent classes she finds something new to discuss about the book.