What book do you wish you would have read when you were 22?

[spookymulder93]

First book to have the most post I'll read before I go back to school.

[Alexander III]

La Divina Comedia

[LitNetIsGreat]

Michael Pollan's In Defence of Food. I would have been healthier, wiser and happier over the last ten years.

[MystyrMystyry]

Catch 22

I knew of its existence and read the title on the broken paperback spines far more times over far more years at far more parties than I care to remember (even if I could remember) but no-one had the courtesy to recommend it, so I thought it was just a piece of fashionable rubbish

Found it at a garage sale a few (3?) years later, amongst others - it was the best read of the lot of them - even though it wasn't exactly a 'Great Book'

[OrphanPip]

I think it's a little too early for me to worry about what I should have read last year.

[arrytus]

I read a book a day, or averaged it, when I was 22, and that's not an exaggeration; I actually wrote the titles all down in a notebook at the time. So it's hard to answer that question. There are a ton of books I wish I'd read in highschool however.

I'll suggest a few books which are worthy of reading:

Non-Fiction: Thucydides, Herodotus, Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason

Fiction: DFW's Infinite Jest, Garcia Marquez's 100 years of Solitude [this last one I didn't read until I was 23 so I will suggest that one]

[blazeofglory]

I wanted to read war and peace. That book was what I always cherished. But the problem was I could not have that book in my native langauge, that is Nepali. I had heard a lot about Tolstoy and I had read some of his stories in Nepali. I could not understand English then.

Later on I read most of his works and yet I could not complete that fat book. I am still trying to read that great philosophical book.
I had however read so many of Russain litterature and Russian literaure was what I could read in my youth but in translation

[Alexander III]

I wanted to read war and peace. That book was what I always cherished. But the problem was I could not have that book in my native langauge, that is Nepali. I had heard a lot about Tolstoy and I had read some of his stories in Nepali. I could not understand English then.

Later on I read most of his works and yet I could not complete that fat book. I am still trying to read that great philosophical book.
I had however read so many of Russain litterature and Russian literaure was what I could read in my youth but in translation

If you enjoy War and Peace I would suggest giving Hugo's Les Miserables a look, it is equally epic and beautiful in scope and execution. I mean in my opinion those two novels are the two epics of the 19th century

[Satan]

Many will tell you what they would have liked to read at 22; I'll tell you what you shouldn't: Cioran, Houellebecq and Dolan.

[JBI]

Next year my goal is to read the Dream of the Red Chamber by Cao Xueqin in Chinese. Also, I want to be able to read classical Chinese like a Chinese University student. So, to put a realistic goal, The collected poems of Li Bai (李太白集）

[stlukesguild]

Difficult question. Much that I read later I simply wasn't ready for. Somehow I doubt that J.L. Borges, Italo Calvino, Flaubert, Eugenio Montale, etc... would have resonated with me then... or they would have resonated in a very different way. I seriously wish that I had come across Baudelaire and Rimbaud sooner... as they ultimately led me to my passion for poetry.

[Seasider]

This is not quite on topic...whatever!
Reflecting on my choice of a degree subject many years after the fact, I said that as a lover of literature from an early age, and I was reading at 3 years old, I probably would have read most of what was prescribed for study anyway.
The 4 works I read and probably would'nt have,without being an undergraduate in the English Honours School, were "Beowulf", "The Faerie Queen", "Paradise Lost" and "Middlemarch". And I doubt I would have come across Thomas Love Peacock.

[Patrick_Bateman]

The Master and Margarita. (I've only just read it, if I had read it 2 years ago I could have re-read it many times by now)

[Patrick_Bateman]

I seriously wish that I had come across Baudelaire and Rimbaud sooner... as they ultimately led me to my passion for poetry.

I hope the high esteem with which you hold the former is a promising omen for me as I have just purchased a copy of selected poetry by him.

[ladderandbucket]

I will make a second nomination for Dawkins's The Selfish Gene. Although, whilst this would have blown my 22 year old mind it could be that gene theory is common knowledge amongst today's generation, so I would alternatively suggest Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. It may not be a great book in itself but once you have read it you will be able to put everything in context.

Or if you are only thinking of fiction I will say Moby Dick. Everyone should attempt this book at least once. I can understand why many people hate it but if it speaks to you it will stay with you for the rest of your life.

[MystyrMystyry]

Selfish Gene should be cumpulsory reading for ALL 17 year olds - it could only help to stop the nonsense

[Alexander III]

Selfish Gene should be cumpulsory reading for ALL 17 year olds - it could only help to stop the nonsense

What is the Selfish Gene ?

I mean the book, what does it concern ?

[MystyrMystyry]

Selfish gene looks at a few things - can be depressing if it's new to you - but a lot of new good information is like that

A potted description is the pointlessness of the accident that is life, but also the magnificence of the biological organism at every level

Well written, not at all hokey or beat-about-the-bush - but beware the author claims to never have had an exhilarating religious-type of experience thus knows not of exhilaration or other higher emotions

But that said, it's still one of the great non-fiction books - I can only recommend it

[arrytus]

What is the Selfish Gene ?

I mean the book, what does it concern ?

Basically it is one of the first cogent yet popular approaches to apply darwinism not just to zoological but biological levels. I read it at about 19 or 20 because my brother was a biology major and had a copy laying around which I cribbed. It's a great book, which is popular but advanced, which can recapitulate Darwin for those who've never read Origin of Species, and yet a more pellucid understanding than Darwin had himself since he didn't know about DNA, genes, nor game theoretic stances on evolution, all things which came about 75 years or so after his death.

[Alexander III]

"thus knows not of exhilaration or other higher emotions"

How dreadful to think...reminds me how fortunate I truly am

:D

[Alexander III]

But in all seriousness I have read Darwin's On The Origin of Species, so this sounds like an interesting book. Just googled it and found it is from Dawkins, I wont judge him by the basis of one book, but I have read his God Delusion; and found it rather weak, as it appears that his perception of what god is, is only shared by religious fundamentalists; well at least his entire book argues "god" as in man in the clouds with lightning and white beard, which is only how religious fundamentalists see god. I'm not religious, and am not affiliated to any particular believe of God but still his argument was rather ill-concieved.

[Emil Miller]

I am not a reader of Dawkins or any other atheistic contemporary writer who is currently commanding the limelight. Having Wikied Dawkins, I find it interesting that he seems to have understood why we behave as we do in relation to the preservation of our genes, but he and others like him are unable to offer any idea as to what end this process is projected and therefore his conclusions, although potentially true, are ultimately sterile.

[MystyrMystyry]

Well Brian, it's like this see...

God says 'Do this, do that, but stay out of mischief. Yes I realise I've changed the rules and I've taken away the knowledge you got from the knowledge tree and reduced your immortality to a short lifespan, but I've let you keep sex - now that's gotta be worth something, yeeees?

As for the mischief, there are ten rules not to break written in stone, easy to find because I've hidden them on the top of a mountain. There are others I've chosen not to include, but you will know when you cross the line because I shall punish you with a quick flick of the karma switch. But why would you even want to tempt that - I've let you keep sex - what more do you want?'

[Uberzensch]

Anna Karenina - I would have started reading classics earlier.

[spookymulder93]

Looks like the Selfish Gene is going to be the winner. Probably take a trip to the library Saturday.

[OrphanPip]

From a biologist's perspective, The Selfish Gene is an alright book, and a cogent articulation of gene level conception of evolution. The book is a bit outdated though, and I've never taken to Dawkins' memetics.

The Ancestor's Tale is Dawkins' best science book, in my opinion, but probably not worth reading if you're not interested in evolution.

Dawkins' religious and philosophical writings aren't really worth reading. At least, to me they don't hold much interest. I've only ever read his science oriented writing though.

Edit: What startles me is how many people read The Selfish Gene, and then consider themselves experts on evolutionary science when they really only have a superficial understanding of molecular biology, genetics, and evolution. I personally think any recent edition of a text book in introductory evolutionary biology would be more informative, but a lot less accessible than Dawkins.

Edit2: I include The Blind Watchmaker in Dawkins' science writing, even though it addresses religion in a broader role as it argues against creationism.

[arrytus]

What startles me is how many people read The Selfish Gene, and then consider themselves experts on evolutionary science when they really only have a superficial understanding of molecular biology, genetics, and evolution. I personally think any recent edition of a text book in introductory evolutionary biology would be more informative, but a lot less accessible than Dawkins.

It's hard even for someone in the field to keep up to date. [sciencedaily.com is my fav although a lot of the article links are subscription only]

As has often been shown by philosophers we take most of our information on faith [please do not read into this word too heavily] that the community of scientists are procedurally adequate and make assumptions which we in our lifetimes have not the ability, time, nor money to check for ourselves [we can't afford to repeat their experiments and have 1st hand info].

Secondly most people don't care for the actual science but merely the precis and its metaphoric or practical applications to their lives. I completely agree, textbooks are interesting and more comprehensive and it's good for everyone to have one from pretty much every discipline [when I was 20 I bought about a dozen textbooks for anatomy, chemistry, physics, biology, computer science, archaeology, neural science, calculus, fractals, applied nonlinear math, et cetera]. However it takes a rarer mind not only to enjoy reading them but to keep the data in mind after say five years has passed [oh how many equations and constants of physics I've forgotten! but on the bright side my stupidity allows me to be amazed once more when I reread! is not a dull mind-coupled with an inquisitive passion- its own reward!]

but I'm always open to new suggestions. What's a good book I should be aware of in your discipline?

p.s. dawkins philosophy is weak and more of an atheist support-group type of thing. I've yet to read Blind Watchmaker, and I thought that was it till you told me of the Ancestor's Tale. Now I've got to find that too...

[OrphanPip]

I agree, arrytus, popular science books have their place, and no one can really keep fully abridge of anything in science beyond the most specialized of topics.

My discipline is diagnostic lab work though, the only interesting thing that happens here is the latest biotech that cuts down on wait times and makes tests more idiot proof so that my job can be done by lesser paid and lesser educated individuals ;). (They're already pretty idiot proof too) I'll probably end up teaching high school biology when I finally give in.

I really do like the Ancestor's Tale though, it was a refreshing approach, going chronologically backwards through the evolutionary history of life and using examples to illuminate certain aspects of evolutionary theory along the way.

[Big Dante]

The question for me is what book should I read in six years time..... I might wait a little longer for this one.

[Rores28]

ah no.. not selfish gene.... In Defense of Food....way more important that you read this one sooner rather than later.

There is no other domain of knowledge less understood by the general public. Which is all the more unsettling because of the relative confidence with which the public thinks they apprehend food matters.

For instance people still think that eggs have a detrimental effect on cholesterol levels, and that fat is bad for you. I actually heard a guy in my cubicle say that he stayed away from avocados because they were really high in fat, then he ate a box of french fries.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Next year my goal is to read the Dream of the Red Chamber by Cao Xueqin in Chinese. Also, I want to be able to read classical Chinese like a Chinese University student. So, to put a realistic goal, The collected poems of Li Bai (李太白集）

Are you saying that you're only 21 years old, JBI?

[JBI]

Are you saying that you're only 21 years old, JBI?

:p
why, how old do you think I am?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, suffice it to say older than that, just based on the posts you make. They seem extremely intelligent for someone who is 21. Plus, it seems like you've experienced quite a lot, travel wise.

[Perandorrrr]

ABC of Reading, by mister Ezra Pound.