The most important English literature to you and why

[Scuberman]

I'm developing a reading list for myself. I have only 6hrs/week to read, and so can cover (deeply) only several average-sized texts per year. Hence, my desire to spend some time carefully selecting them.

The last book I read was Atlas Shrugged. Hope this explains my motivation to curate my list a little :)

List items can be anything: long/short/poetry/essays/fiction/non-fiction/anything else.

At the moment, I'm thinking of sticking with the most highly-recommended classics. But experience tells me essays, such as Orwell's Politics and the English Language can also offer brilliant knowledge/insight for the short time it takes to read them.

Please help!

[chevalierdelame]

I read this essay and I found it brilliant. Thanks
Here's a list that might help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Classics
I'll post anything more I think should be included in your list as I find them.

[Scuberman]

You totally made my day :)

I'm going to research this list thoroughly, see what I can get in audio book, work out whether Eliot intended for the list to be read in order, and see if I can get the introductory notes (or a least a brief summary of each volume) so that I can study that before delving into the individual texts.

I happen to know that some of the texts are best "studied", rather than "read", (example: Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations - this was extremely important - perhaps the first economics text, and it had ideas that were ground-breaking, but many of those ideas have been fully fleshed out and do not form part of contemporary wisdom in the field of economics).

It may take me days (perhaps weeks!), but I'll post back here when I have a plan as to how to take on this massive task!

[mal4mac]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Classics

Volume 1 - certainly doesn't contain the "most highly recommended classics", more a choice based on bias & patriotism. Volume 2 - this is more like it! But it's not *English* literature.
Volume 3 - OK this is English literature, but some rather strange choices! Milton's prose? he's most famous for his poetry. Bacon's essays are interesting, but quite difficult reading, and don't usually appear on any critics top ten list.
Volume 4 - Ah here's Milton's poetry. He seems a bit obsessed with Milton. Milton is difficult, maybe he's trying to look like a true Harvard scholar by choosing the most difficult works...

I don't think this a is a great list for someone attempting to get into English literature. Most critics agree that Shakespeare is the greatest author, and he doesn't get recommended until volume 46! He's also easier to read than most of the authors in the preceding 45 volumes. So why not start with him? Try "Hamlet" for starters...

After Shakespeare, why not try Dickens? "David Copperfield" would be a good starting point.

[Scuberman]

Most critics agree that Shakespeare is the greatest author, and he doesn't get recommended until volume 46!

Great point! Can't work out the rationale for the order - introduction/reader's guide in volume 50? Odd.

[Scuberman]

Here's quite an inspirational thought (about the Harvard list):

"Two editors from Collier, Norman Hapgood and William Patten, had read a speech Eliot delivered to an audience of working men, in which he declared that a five-foot shelf of books could provide "a good substitute for a liberal education in youth to anyone who would read them with devotion, even if he could spare but fifteen minutes a day for reading."

I can't help but get exciting thinking that if I can knock off one foot per year, I could be wise five years from now! - that's worth getting excited about, right?!

[Dono]

The Harvard books are a pretty thorough list of reading for any one who wants to get "smarter". They are worth reading and owning, although you can find the entire transcript of every volume online now. As a book addict I have the real deal.
But the above poster was right who said they're not so much "literature" as important historical documents etc.

[Poetaster]

Volume 3 - OK this is English literature, but some rather strange choices! Milton's prose? he's most famous for his poetry. Bacon's essays are interesting, but quite difficult reading, and don't usually appear on any critics top ten list.


I certainly agree Milton's poetry should come before his prose, but Milton's prose is also extremely important and valued enough to merit inclusion, surely? While he's not the beginning, he is the best early voice of the Republican feeling which was a big influence on early liberalism.

[mal4mac]

I certainly agree Milton's poetry should come before his prose, but Milton's prose is also extremely important and valued enough to merit inclusion, surely? While he's not the beginning, he is the best early voice of the Republican feeling which was a big influence on early liberalism.

Fair enough. Looking closely at the strict purpose of this list, it was to provide the "elements of a liberal education". If we assume he was using a strict definition of "liberal" then I guess including Milton's foundational works make sense. But the OP wasn't interested in this - he wanted to read the most highly-recommended classics of English Literature.

I would extend this to "world literature" as you don't want to miss out on Tolstoy, Flaubert, Cervantes, etc.,...

I like the list in "Top Ten" by Peter Zane, if you want to start with a list of about 500 books recommended by 125 of the leading writers of today. (Milton's prose isn't on it :))

[Scuberman]

As a book addict I have the real deal.

Awesome - if you had to choose the ten volumes that influenced you most, which would they be?

[Scuberman]

The Harvard books are a pretty thorough list of reading for any one who wants to get "smarter".

I'd like to become learned and wise, so hopefully these texts will help!


[The Harvard List is ] not so much "literature" as important historical documents etc.

Given my aims, the reading list I'll make can exclude documents that may be of historical importance but aren't best at imparting contemporary wisdom (Wealth of Nations is a great example - it initiated economic thought, but it's a hefty read, and most of the ideas are have since been refined and can be found on wikipedia in a very small fraction of the time it would take to read the book in full).

[Poetaster]

Fair enough. Looking closely at the strict purpose of this list, it was to provide the "elements of a liberal education". If we assume he was using a strict definition of "liberal" then I guess including Milton's foundational works make sense. But the OP wasn't interested in this - he wanted to read the most highly-recommended classics of English Literature.

I would extend this to "world literature" as you don't want to miss out on Tolstoy, Flaubert, Cervantes, etc.,...

Oh yeah, I certainly agree. I don't know if anyone these days would read Areopagitica because they wanted to read a classic literary text. It's really more for academic study than for pleasure these days while Milton's Paradise Lost is most certainly is still read for pleasure. Though granted it's a very special kind of pleasure. :)

[Scuberman]

"elements of a liberal education"

I took the Wikipedia definition and changed a few words: "The liberal arts are those subjects or skills that are considered essential for a free person (a citizen) to know in order to take an active part in civic life."

This is part of what I'm after. But in addition to these really 'big-picture' reads (philosophy, politics, economics, science, society etc), I'd like reads that are of importance at a personal level - e.g. personal finance, lifestyle, relationships, health and fitness.

[Scuberman]

I like the list in "Top Ten" by Peter Zane

Looks like a great list. Given my aims (knowledge etc), are there any of the top ten you'd weed out for being, perhaps, brilliant (or just very popular!) in a literary sense, but not so great at imparting knowledge and understanding?

[mal4mac]

Sven Birkerts in his preface to "Top Ten" says, "The collective preference is clearly for memorable character-driven dramas of love and death delineated in sensuous, nuanced prose." He makes a good case for suggesting that love and death are the central themes of most great literature, so if you are after an understanding of these aspects of human life then "Top Ten" provides a good list.

But if you are after specific information on philosophy, politics, economics, science, and society then I would (mostly) look elsewhere. Wikipedia perhaps? Some literary works do provide information on these themes, for instance in reading Tolstoy's Anna Karenina you will learn a bit about the philosophies of Nietzsche, Hegel, and Schopenhauer, and the politics/economics of 19th century Russia, but these are linked very much to the personal impact they have on one of the main characters, and Tolstoy certainly doesn't provide a complete summary of all these subjects.

For advice on personal finance, lifestyle, health and fitness then this is definitely the wrong forum! I suppose you might make some recommendation - Dickens' Bleak House on personal finance? But I'd read Jim Bogle, or similar writers, if you actually want to arrange your personal finances! And I'm sure Bogle would not be insulted if I were to say that no one would include him on a "Top Ten" list of favourite literature - Dickens is a lot more fun to read. A literary work should, above all else, be an enjoyable experience, one of life's great pleasures, and something you can fall in love with. That's the kind of works "Top Ten" is considering.

[Whosis]

The list seems to be missing John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. Other classics I know of include Catcher in the Rye, 1984, Brave New World, A Farewell to Arms, and The Great Gatsby.

[mal4mac]

The list seems to be missing John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. Other classics I know of include Catcher in the Rye, 1984, Brave New World, A Farewell to Arms, and The Great Gatsby.

Which list? "Top Ten" has all of these except "Brave New World". Interesting that there's no Aldous Huxley on this list.

[JHG]

Agreed with those who point to Milton. Though perhaps check out More's Utopia prior to reading Paradise Lost. Only takes a few hours, and rewarding for anyone with an interest in history.

[Scuberman]

Thank you everyone for your generosity in helping. Since posting, I've learned a lot about what I'm after and where I can go to find it:

- I've learned that I'm really after literature (or, more aptly, "texts") for the sake of learning, not literature for the sake of brilliant literature. My original post in this forum is a bit like going to a classical music professor to ask what he listens to in the gym!

- Given the first point, I'm probably better off learning about most disciplines through scientific/academic texts, rather than literature. Also, I'm probably going to find most pertinence in non-fiction.

- I've got a great starting point in the Harvard classics, however, I'll refine this to include only those texts which are still highly germane to contemporary wisdom (i.e. remove those which are historically important but not longer as relevant).

- In addition to the two lists (the Harvard classics and the J. Peder Zane lists), I found the all-TIME 100 best non-fiction list (see the 11 books under the 'ideas' heading).

Thanks again to everyone for your feedback and I'll keep working on this list and post back here when I have any updates. In the mean time, if you have any texts you recommend personally (i.e. those that may not be so popular as to make any list, but which you found profound) please post them here.

[mal4mac]

- I've learned that I'm really after literature (or, more aptly, "texts") for the sake of learning, not literature for the sake of brilliant literature...

What use is learning for learnings sake? What do you learn? Facts... Facts... facts... The phone book is probably the text that is closest to being purely factual, with no pretences to aesthetic values, so why not read the phone book?

Actually I don't think you mean this - from your previous posts, you want to learn for the sake of getting fitter, improving your finances, and so on... Showing some concern over these matters is appropriate, but to avoid excess tedium & narcissism, surely concern about these matters should be minimized. I did read several books on these areas and bored myself stiff reading them and following their advice. I shortened my reading list to the minimum in these areas, i.e:

The Joy of Laziness - Peter Axt
The Little Book of Common Sense Investing - Jim Bogle

Not only are these very short, but they recommend doing some very simple things that take little time to implement, so you can spend more time doing far more interesting things - like reading novels.

For factual matters in the philosophical, economic, and social spheres I wouldn't try reading, say, a big multi-volume history of philosophy - that way you just end up reading hundreds of pages of medieval Christian philosophy which (unless you happen to have an idiosyncratic interest in this topic) is a bit like reading the phone book.

These days if I find myself wondering about some philosophical term I'll start by looking it up in Wikipedia, and that will probably be enough. Again the point is to "fill in the facts" asap and then get back to reading proper literature.

One definition of literature is "the best that has been written". Why wouldn't you want to spend most of your reading time encountering the best that has been written? Why would you want to read a lot of fact books instead?

In certain cases, you can have your cake and eat it. For instance, recently I wanted to learn more about WWI so borrowed a thick history from the library, but got bogged down - too many dates and names! (Too many history books read like the phone book...) So I read Pat Barker's "Resurrection trilogy" instead.

Finally - read "Hard Times" by Charles Dickens, it's a wonderful warning against giving yourself a purely fact based education.

[Vota]

I would rather most people read only the books contained within The Harvard Classics set, and read them well, than read what they typically read, which is crap. For all its faults, this is still a fantastic set of works. One of its strongest points is the strength and range of the essays contained within and the selection of its plays.

To someone with a certain amount of knowledge it is not hard to notice the sets weaknesses, but I find it hard to fault its choices. It is not a universally perfect set, but no set can be, especially one limited to roughly 50 volumes. I would say that if someone had limited time and a limited budget, they could add roughly 50 specific books to this set and have a helluva treasure trove of knowledge and enjoyment from which to cull from at will.

As an example, my mother has read all her life. I asked her once how many books she has read. She guessed that she has read about one novel every two weeks for the past 50 years. That's over 2000 books. My only critique is that most of these books were not classics, and were not intellectually challenging or stimulating. I know this because I know what types of books she likes to read, which are thrillers and page turners. If even 1/10 of those books had been GREAT books, scattered evenly throughout her reading history, she would probably have a much stronger mind than she presently possesses, and would certainly be more knowledgeable about history, politics, economics, philosophy, plays, poetry etc, than she is. I have been reading almost solely classics of literature for the past 2 years, and already my mind and my understanding have begun to grow stronger than hers in many ways. To me this is proof that reading great books, classics, does make you smarter and/or more knowledgeable if you apply yourself to them.

[tonywalt]

Favorite is Catcher in the Rye.
Best written, and this short list can change daily, is Lolita(a writers book) and Grapes of Wrath(another writers book)

[JBI]

People tend to confuse the study of literature, of whatever country, with the reading and enjoyment of literature for personal reasons. In general the canon is to be studied as one studies the bible or Koran, not to be read like one watches TV. Much of it is important but unengaging and fills an important place in literary history, not contemporary history.

As such, one must negotiate the difference between the Harvard Classics and the Penguin classics on those grounds. Harvard is trying to market to university students, whereas penguin to the mass public. One suits the study of literature, one is more in line with the "tastes" of literature.

[Vota]

I tend to mostly agree with what you just said JBI. The Harvard Classics were meant to allow the average person that did not have a college education, the ability to generally obtain the rough equivalent of a classic liberal education, and for that purpose it does it's job admirably.

I read both for enjoyment and for learning, but I agree when you say there is and should be a difference when approaching the canon. When I read books that I know are canon, I tend to perk up and pay close attention. I try to read critically and understand as much as I can. I can honestly say that every canonical work that I have read, is worth AT LEAST a second read. For example, I started out reading classics by way of the Great Books program and it's recommended reading list. I was reading Aristophanes The Clouds and Plato's Apology and Crito. I can guarantee that if I were to re-read them nearly two years later, having spent that time reading the canon, that I will read them and see them differently now. I have grown, and when I revisit these works I will understand more than I did before. This was Mortimer Adler's classic catch phrase. To go from understanding less to understanding more.

I have found reading the canonical works can be very pleasurable, but that depends on the specific work and your inherent tastes. Even the books that I have found to be pleasurable to read were highly educational. Some of them are painful to read, like Kant, and some of them are literally psychically painful, like reading Crime and Punishment, but they all reward the effort in some way. As you read these books you learn more, understand more, and I do believe, get smarter. Reading the canon is like lifting weights for the brain.

When I want to read for entertainment and entertainment alone, I read fantasy and science fiction, or graphic novels and comics omnibi. Some of the best science fiction I keep my thinking cap on for, but for the most part you can just let the story take hold without being too analytical about the reading process. The key for me is reading more of the canon than tripe. I seem to be at a 2/3 ratio of quality, brain stimulating reading material to mindless entertainment, but everyone's ratio is different.

[mal4mac]

I would rather most people read only the books contained within The Harvard Classics set, and read them well, than read what they typically read, which is crap.

Why do you mind so much what people read? How do you know what people typically read? Who are you to say it's crap?


As an example, my mother has read all her life. I asked her once how many books she has read. She guessed that she has read about one novel every two weeks for the past 50 years. That's over 2000 books. My only critique is that most of these books were not classics, and were not intellectually challenging or stimulating. I know this because I know what types of books she likes to read, which are thrillers and page turners.

Many thrillers and page turners are classics, for instance, John Le Carre is now thought by many literary authors to be the best British writer since the war, and he's definitely a thriller writer & his books are definitely page turners. I also think he's intellectually stimulating, and gives important insights into "the cold war", "terrorism" and the mentality of the "warriors" involved in these matters

Many literary works are page turners, even those heavy on intellect - I'm storming through "The Unbearable Lightness of being" by Milan Kundera at the moment, and it's full of philosophy and political observations, but is also a page turner (and, if not easily fitted into the thriller genre, is certainly thrilling.) I do tend to gravitate towards literary writers, but I have Walter Mosley, Raymond Chandler and le Carre on my "read soon" shelf beside Steinbeck & Gogol. I wouldn't dismiss your mother's reading, I think you have no basis for dismissing it so easily. I think it makes her no more or less an "accomplished reader" than you.



If even 1/10 of those books had been GREAT books, scattered evenly throughout her reading history, she would probably have a much stronger mind than she presently possesses...

In what way stronger?



... and would certainly be more knowledgeable about history, politics, economics, philosophy, plays, poetry etc, than she is.


Perhaps, but she would be less knowledgeable about page turners and thrillers.

In any case, "Art is perfectly useless, according to the sublime Oscar Wilde, who was right about everything." - Harold Bloom

Your mum is, obviously, getting pleasure from what she reads. All this stress on learning politics, history, etc, etc is just Gradgrindery, as Dickens pointed out in his superb page turner, "Hard Times".



"... already my mind and my understanding have begun to grow stronger than hers in many ways.


But are these interesting ways? I admire readers your mother who read simply for pleasure. I do not admire the dusty scholar who reads only to learn facts, gain useless understandings, and does this in pursuit of prizes, jobs and money.



To me this is proof that reading great books, classics, does make you smarter...

Smart? Who cares about smart - Dr Strangelove was smart.

[luhsun]

It does seem unkind to be so patronising of one's mum reading list.

[mona amon]

I've got to chime in, too! Today is Mother's Day, after all. :D


If even 1/10 of those books had been GREAT books, scattered evenly throughout her reading history, she would probably have a much stronger mind than she presently possesses,...

There are so many different ways of being smart, so many different types of knowledge. If she had buried herself only in the books you think are great, she'd probably have missed out on all sorts of knowledge she's gained by other means. I wouldn't dismiss your mom's mind so lightly.

[Emil Miller]

The list seems to be missing John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. Other classics I know of include Catcher in the Rye, 1984, Brave New World, A Farewell to Arms, and The Great Gatsby.

If you are referring to the list of Harvard Classics, you will note that it contains volumes that were printed before 1909 whereas all of the novels you have mentioned were written after that year.

[WICKES]

I sometimes think it is best to stick to a handful of great works and read and re-read them. The works I intend to return to again and again in my life are the following: King Lear, Hamlet, The Tempest, Henry IV; the selected poetry of Donne, Wordsworth, Shelley and Keats; Blake's Marriage of Heaven and Hell and his songs; the selected essays of Oscar Wilde, Aldous Huxley and Bertrand Russell; T.S Eliot's collected poems; Evelyn Waugh's Sword of Honour trilogy.

I also have a burning ambition to read Dante and Proust in their original language, but I suspect I shall die long before that happens!!

[WICKES]

Many thrillers and page turners are classics, for instance, John Le Carre is now thought by many literary authors to be the best British writer since the war, and he's definitely a thriller writer & his books are definitely page turners.





I'm not so sure about Le Carre being the best British author since the war, but it is a good point. Take PG Wodehouse as an example. Now no one would argue that Wodehouse had anything 'serious' to say. You can't compare him to someone like Huxley or Orwell, writers who wrestled with the big ideas. Yet Wodehouse was a superb prose stylist. He did something new with the English language and, for his use of language, has been compared to Shakespeare.

[Scuberman]

King Lear, Hamlet, The Tempest, Henry IV; the selected poetry of Donne, Wordsworth, Shelley and Keats; Blake's Marriage of Heaven and Hell and his songs; the selected essays of Oscar Wilde, Aldous Huxley and Bertrand Russell; T.S Eliot's collected poems; Evelyn Waugh's Sword of Honour trilogy ... Dante and Proust

Quite an ask, but would you provide your (unique) reasoning on each of your choices, as we all get something different from the texts we read.

[Scuberman]

Here's an example about an earlier point made about the Harvard Classics list, that it contains historically relevant texts whose information can be gleaned far more easily (and more accurately, given the benefits of further research) by reading a more recent book on the same topic.

Example: Richard Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker. It’s an easy, 12 hour read (at my rate), whereas volume 11 of the Harvard classics list (containing only Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species) would probably take me (at my estimate) at least 22 hours, and this figure takes no account of the contrast in writing styles which would make Darwin’s much more difficult to read.

Makes me even more curious as to whether someone would have updated the Harvard Classics list to take into account contemporary wisdom.

[JBI]

It's called Harvard classics not Harvard contenporary wisdom.

[luhsun]

Read a current textbook of biology if you are interested in evolution. It would definitely take more than 12 hours and would not be an easy read. It is somewhat naive to read dawkins and compare it to darwin.

[Scuberman]

It's called Harvard classics not Harvard contenporary wisdom.

So how would you turn the list into one for 2014, as opposed to 1909?

That's one of the questions being addressed here.

[Scuberman]

Read a current textbook of biology if you are interested in evolution. It would definitely take more than 12 hours and would not be an easy read. It is somewhat naive to read dawkins and compare it to darwin.


Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker - 10 hours (useful, relevant, appropriately written, fun/interesting to read, easy for the layman to understand)

Darwin's Origin of Species - at least 20 hours (useful; although limited in scope, was ground-breaking at the time, but doesn't look at implications of the then ground-breaking theories, just presents them; difficult to read)

Campbell, Reece and Meyers' Biology - approx 80 hours (useful, thorough, starts from bare basics - could be frustratingly slow/thorough)


All three examples look like good ways of gaining an understanding of one very major area of knowledge. There are thousands more texts one could read. My objective is to find the best, up-to-date (if possible) texts in each area.

Another example: in the field of economics, the layman could gain a better overall understanding of the discipline (in around 30 hours) with Cassidy's How Markets Fail. He doesn't go into extraordinary depth, but covers most major sub-disciplines in the field of economics. An excellent text. Some readers will emerge a week after first picking the book up with a better understanding of economics than many econs majors.


We have choices about what we feed our brains. Reading is not like watching TV where we may (at worst) waste a couple of hours. The difference between a very good read and an extremely good read can be hours, days or weeks of one's time, and can significantly affect one's understanding of the world.

[luhsun]

And with a little reading of pop science, let's us nuke the Pierian spring. ... but, really, the boast that mere reading of a book for a week will give a "better understanding ..than most econs major" and the rabid search for the best up-to-date text... what has become of today's gen-y?

[Vota]

You completely missed the point of my post, Mal. Your post reeks of assumption and idiocy.

[Scuberman]

"better understanding ..than most econs major"

I've taught economics at a top-20 world university for 3 years and worked in the field for a decade. I know what I'm talking about in that discipline. Cassidy's text was one of three recommended to me by one of the most distinguished economic historians alive.

I'm wondering if people have powerful recommendations from their respective fields (or other fields/areas of interest).

What I'm clearly not interested in is reading willy-nilly, everything that's available, on the off chance I'll stumble upon some gold. I'm not trying to get a Ph D in a week - but to educate myself in broad terms effectively and with a view to having acquired at least a grounding in each of the disciplines in the liberal arts within the next five years.

[mal4mac]

You completely missed the point of my post, Mal. Your post reeks of assumption and idiocy.

In what way did I miss the point? Maybe I did assume some things, if so it might be kinder to explain rather than accuse me of idiocy. But I didn't really expect kindness!

[Vota]

One shouldn't assume a friendly and elaborate response when having previously posted a diatribe based on missed points and massive assumptions.

I will add, to be nice, that while Oscar Wilde was a genius, and that his wit is well established, not everything he said was golden. You seem to agree with his view of art. I do not. Also, my guess is that Harold Bloom was being facetious with that comment, if not, well, Harold Bloom is Harold Bloom.

[mal4mac]

I'm not so sure about Le Carre being the best British author since the war, but it is a good point.


I'm not sure myself, but a few critics & writers have said this, including Ian McEwan.



Take PG Wodehouse as an example. Now no one would argue that Wodehouse had anything 'serious' to say. You can't compare him to someone like Huxley or Orwell, writers who wrestled with the big ideas. Yet Wodehouse was a superb prose stylist. He did something new with the English language and, for his use of language, has been compared to Shakespeare.

He does assume a certain level of knowledge, and does sometimes juggle big ideas (for comic effect!) For instance, he does consider the activities of extinct creatures, and the battle tactics of the Roman Empire:

"Aunt is calling to Aunt like mastodons bellowing across primeval swamps.”

Wooster: “I retired to an armchair and put my feet up, sipping the mixture with carefree enjoyment, rather like Caesar having one in his tent the day he overcame the Nervii.” (You don’t have to know who the Nervii were; but you do have to know who Caesar was.)

But for an author who plays with ideas as much as Orwell and Huxley, and is as funny as Wodehouse, what about Clive James? His essays are superb, there's one on Aldous Huxley:

http://www.clivejames.com/aldous-huxley

"How should we live? Can nothing harmonize the turbulence of our existence? How can we stop development from destroying the human race? The questions that racked his brain are still with us. They drove him to mysticism in the end. If we don’t want them to do the same to us, we had better find out how so clever a man should come to believe in the All, the Good, the Transcendental and a lot of other loftily capitalized words that look like panic disguised as tranquillity. Unless we are smarter than he was, which for most of us is a remote possibility, then our chances of escaping his decline into what sounds awfully like flapdoodle are remoter still. We need him back so that we can examine him. We need to know what happened in that clever head."

[luhsun]

Something must be wrong with the teachings at your world top 20 university if a single book by a journalist could bring about a better understanding than all the resources available at your esteemed institution.

[luhsun]

Schuberman, if i may ask, why the haste and compulsion to have a working (or at least basic) knowledge in each of the disciplines of the liberal arts? With 10 years in economics and 3 years as a lecturer, you should be at the peak of your chosen field.

[Vota]

Perhaps Scuberman wants to broaden his understanding. More than one intelligent person has remarked that people that specialize in a specific field tend to view everything from that point of view. Why restrain one's self to a specific viewpoint, but aim to build a broader and more encompassing understanding of the world by branching out?

I seem to detect a feeling from a few members of this forum, of a general aversion to reading for learning, for the gaining of knowledge which I don't understand.

[luhsun]

We learn, from reading among other ways. Hopefully, a widened horizon will let us be less sanctimonious of our mothers' choice of books or from making sweeping claims after reading the holy grail tome of each discipline.

[luhsun]

Please let me explain before i get accused of rudeness. I read literature for fun..it is definitely not my profession. From this forum, i do learn others may have a different understanding.. and this random cross-pollination is the major selling point of this forum. I do admit guilty to a bit of bear-baiting though.

[mal4mac]

I seem to detect a feeling from a few members of this forum, of a general aversion to reading for learning, for the gaining of knowledge which I don't understand.

If I want to fix my bicycle I'll peruse my cycle repair manual, even though it isn't much fun to read. So there is certainly a place for pure reading to learn. Also, if I read novels or essays I will often learn a bit of philosophy, history or psychology - which is fine as long as it it doesn't detract from the pleasure of reading. So, for me, "the gaining of knowledge" has to be for some necessary purpose (fixing my bike) or a side effect of aesthetic pleasure. I don't understand why someone would read a biology textbook, unless they are planning to earn lots of money & respect by becoming a medic. (I have two science degrees and have read lots of science textbooks. I'm not reading any more! Novels are a lot more fun...)

[Vota]

Luhsun, go read my post about my mother's book choices again. Note that nowhere did I proclaim she had a puny intellect, that she was not intelligent, or that she had never learned anything from the books she read. What I did say is that she likely would have developed a stronger mind; a mind stronger than the already strong mind she possesses, "IF" she had read more challenging books, at least 1 in 10. I know what books she has read. We have talked about books quite abit, and sometimes I can be guilty of being a little pretentious, but when I have seen the growth that I have had in the past two years, much of it to do with the books I have been reading, I cannot help, but compare the effect to her reading choices and the direction and level of her mental development. My mother is a highly talented artist, a wonderful person, and an intelligent human being. That said, I can still critique her reading choices by giving my honest opinion.

I will also add that I was being extremely general with my statements about thrillers, genres, and people reading crap in general. Look, it's a short life, and there are A LOT of books out there. Some books are good, some suck, some are amazing, some stand the test of time, and some are amazing AND stand the test of time. I try to select the books I read from those last two pools. That doesn't mean that I don't read purely for enjoyment. I read comics like The Sandman, New X-Men, and what not. The difference, is I try to read the best of any given genre AND I try to read books that will challenge me in some way, whether that be by presenting modes of thought I have not been exposed to or considered, to new ideas, or to conceptually difficult subjects that cause my mind to focus and mull it over. Anyone can read purely for pleasure, and there's nothing wrong with that. I would posit that it is better to read works that have stood the test of time, and that will challenge a reader, on at least a 1 to 1 ratio with books that are read merely for entertainment. I have read hundreds of science fiction and fantasy books over the years. There are only a few dozen I consider worthy to sit permanently among my other books.

I have some basis for comparison. I would consider The Spy Who Came In From the Cold, quality reading. Maybe not The Iliad quality, or The Brothers Karamazov, but still good. It is considered a top tier spy novel, a book that is in many peoples' opinion, representative of the best of the genre. If people want to spend their reading time reading crap, or pure fluff then more power to them. I honestly do not care what other people read, but given a chance to voice my opinion, yes, I do in fact think most people could read better books that actually help develop their minds and give them a way to bridge the gap between the past and present, and how the two are intertwined. Sure, you can walk around not having read The Iliad, or being completely ignorant of any Greek or Roman culture, but you are essentially resigning yourself to being ignorant if you live in a western based society. Ignorant of the tradition of the past that has lead to and caused the present. Reading classics of literature helps bridge this gap. Reading the best of any genre helps a person discern quality from crap. I cannot formally give a complete definition of what exactly constitutes quality atm. Well, I could try, but I don't feel like mustering up an essay about quality at the time being. What I can say, is that there is good, and there is bad. There is better, and there is best. If you think not, if you think taking a crap on a piece of newspaper constitutes art, then we clearly don't see things from the same perspective.

I could go on and on, and smarter people than I have, so I'll stop there, but those are some reasons I can give off the top of my head as to the past comments I have made.

[luhsun]

Thank you vota for your clarifications. I still, however, am queasy reading about book superiority and book cleansing.

[JBI]

Let people read what they enjoy. I have no problem with people reading Dan Brown as long as he doesn't come near the ivory tower. As it is the novel is a dead form in our contemporary discourse anyway; be it Chabon or Rowling, the difference is rather minimal in the long run. Now, if it were the 19th century, then there is a difference. Better to critique people's habits of television and movie watching then their book choice. As it is, contemporary novels have stopped being particularly important to the culture of much of the Western world in the past 50 years, markedly after television and the cinema boomed to what they have become now.

This is not to rip on books, but it is a question of idea that movies are our new genre of development, with the mini-series as a sort of sub-genre. Nationalism, economics, and the powers that be have already picked up on this.

That being said, reading the rest is a form of history. It may be engaging, but it is reading into historical documents more than anything else. Perhaps one day we will look back on these times as literate times, but the general feeling is people will study the cinema of the early 21st century, not the novels.

[Vota]

luhsun, there is in fact book superiority, so there is nothing to be queasy about there. As for book cleansing, I never suggested that nor do I believe in that. I merely state that some books are better than others and many people could benefit from reading those books, at least some of the time. I would never endorse cleansing/book burning/censorship except in the case of the most extreme filth, such as child pornography, nor do I believe people should not have the freedom to read what they wish to, except, again, as regards material so vile as to not be under the protection of freedom of the press, for good reason.

[Scuberman]

Firstly, as I mentioned in a previous post, I misled the discussion by initially asking for the ‘most important literature to you’. This could mean any of a number of things. What I recognised was that what I really sought were the texts (as distinct from strictly ‘literature’, which could confuse the discussion) that were most valuable in people’s education.

Asking why someone would be interested in learning new things is a relevant question if you’re addressing the initial question I posed. Hence, I can see why some people are agitated when they see a whole bunch of posts about different texts that may be of great educational value, but are just average in terms of their literary value.

I think we can all agree that there’s some overlap, but many texts of great educational value would not be described as great literature, and much of the world’s great literature would not (necessarily) be the most educational.

To (selfishly) move the discussion forward in the direction I hope for it to go, I would pose this question: which texts taught you the most in the following fields*^?

*vary the fields as you please, these are only suggestions.

^I’m also very interested in why people recommend certain texts - rambling encouraged!

Feel free to state obvious selections, but also include any that were special to you! I’ve filled out a few of my choices.

Humanities:
Art
Literature
Linguistics – Syntactic Structures (Noam Chomsky)
Philosophy – The Brothers Karamazov (Dostoyevsky)
Religion
Ethics – War and Peace (Dostoyevsky)
Modern foreign languages
Music
Theater
Speech
Classical languages (Latin/Greek) etc

Social sciences:
History
Psychology
Law
Sociology
Politics
Gender studies
Anthropology
Economics – Why Markets Fail (John Cassidy)
Geography
Business informatics

Natural sciences:
Astronomy
Biology – The Blind Watchmaker (Richard Dawkins)
Chemistry
Physics
Botany
Archaeology
Zoology
Geology
Earth sciences

Formal sciences:
Mathematics – Mathematics for the Million (Lancelot Hogben)
Logic
Statistics

Personal/Life Skills:
Memory development – The Memory Book (Harry Lorayne and Jerry Lucas)
Finances
Nutrition
Relationships
Passion – On the Road (Jack Kerouac)

[luhsun]

Using evolutionary analogy, there is a multitude of random variety of literature. Natural selection over time will decide which survive, and i fear jdi's premonition of youtube superceding books may actually come true. It is unlikely that the heroic lamarckian effort of vota to stretch the giraffe's neck, for at least some of the time(as he is wont to explain), would make any difference to the length of our giraffe's neck.
By the way, child pornography is just one of the manifestation of child exploitation and sexual abuse...and those are mainly occasioned by the 'relatively' rich and wealthy exploiting the destitute cambodian or filipinos or white or black inmates of slums in your inner cities. Most of these perverts are busily molesting victims 'live' or over the internet. I dont think they would be the least perturbed by vota's banning books ;-)

[mortalterror]

Let people read what they enjoy. I have no problem with people reading Dan Brown as long as he doesn't come near the ivory tower. As it is the novel is a dead form in our contemporary discourse anyway; be it Chabon or Rowling, the difference is rather minimal in the long run. Now, if it were the 19th century, then there is a difference. Better to critique people's habits of television and movie watching then their book choice. As it is, contemporary novels have stopped being particularly important to the culture of much of the Western world in the past 50 years, markedly after television and the cinema boomed to what they have become now.

This is not to rip on books, but it is a question of idea that movies are our new genre of development, with the mini-series as a sort of sub-genre. Nationalism, economics, and the powers that be have already picked up on this.

That being said, reading the rest is a form of history. It may be engaging, but it is reading into historical documents more than anything else. Perhaps one day we will look back on these times as literate times, but the general feeling is people will study the cinema of the early 21st century, not the novels.

That is partly true, but it doesn't take into account how many of the most popular movies and tv series began as books. Game of Thrones was a series of books before it was a tv show. The Walking Dead was a comicbook, as were all the popular superhero movies. The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings movies were popular books first. No Country For Old Men and The Road were books. Cloud Atlas, Monuments Men, Snowpiercer, Lone Survivor, Edge of Tommorow (All You Need is Kill), Enders game, The Wolf of Wallstreet, 12 Years a Slave, There Will Be Blood, Jack Reacher, Solomon Kane, Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, World War Z, The Bourne Legacy, John Carter of Mars, John Dies at the End, Life of Pi, Lincoln, Harry Potter, Twilight, True Blood, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, etc. Most were popular before they were adapted, but once they become popular tv shows or movies they have a second even more popular life, since many people who like the movies decide to read the books too. August Osage County won a bunch of Tonys a few years back. Now, it's a major motion picture. So did Doubt, I believe. It's best not to underestimate the cannibalistic nature of the arts and the way that ideas migrate mediums.

[JBI]

That is partly true, but it doesn't take into account how many of the most popular movies and tv series began as books. Game of Thrones was a series of books before it was a tv show. The Walking Dead was a comicbook, as were all the popular superhero movies. The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings movies were popular books first. No Country For Old Men and The Road were books. Cloud Atlas, Monuments Men, Snowpiercer, Lone Survivor, Edge of Tommorow (All You Need is Kill), Enders game, The Wolf of Wallstreet, 12 Years a Slave, There Will Be Blood, Jack Reacher, Solomon Kane, Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, World War Z, The Bourne Legacy, John Carter of Mars, John Dies at the End, Life of Pi, Lincoln, Harry Potter, Twilight, True Blood, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, etc. Most were popular before they were adapted, but once they become popular tv shows or movies they have a second even more popular life, since many people who like the movies decide to read the books too. August Osage County won a bunch of Tonys a few years back. Now, it's a major motion picture. So did Doubt, I believe. It's best not to underestimate the cannibalistic nature of the arts and the way that ideas migrate mediums.

True, true, and I don't dispute this. But I question the impact these books had upon their respective genres (for instance, Game of Thrones maybe had some genre influence, but not much on our understanding of "the novel). The general trend in adaptation is to display far more creativity in the approach (camera work, digital effects, acting etc.) over the general stagnate development of the novel, in the sense that no author in English now has the same impact on genre as someone like Sir. Walter Scott. Life of Pi was a good novel, supposedly, but did nothing really to advance novels - the film perhaps made progress in film.

Right now the franchisers feel more comfortable banking on books to films, and not direct writing from screenplays. To write original screenplays is, I guess, regarded as far more risky, and therefore we are rehashing old stories in new ways. My point is more toward the "life" of forms - film is still developing whereas the novel has made little progress since the 1960s.

As for its social function - that peeked generally at the birth of specific nationalisms - mainly the 19th century for England and France, a bit later for Russia, and Germany, the early 20th for China, Japan, Korea, India, etc. The presence of a modern novelist and the idea of "modern" literature is staggering across borders, with the idea of national "authors" being even larger than national poets. I'm pressed to find any novelist who has a mobilizing of culture power in the sense that our 19th century novelists did. That being said, film still has this power.

[mal4mac]

I'm pressed to find any novelist who has a mobilizing of culture power in the sense that our 19th century novelists did. That being said, film still has this power.

Does film have this power? Novelists like Dickens and George Eliot were appreciated by the general reader, and almost all cultural critics. Many critics take the view that film is inferior to the novel. Not all say this, of course. But the fact that many do is a reflection of the idea that in our post-modern world *nothing* is at the centre of culture power. There are just a lot of splinter groups who will never agree. You think the novel is dead, I think it is very much alive. You think the comic book is important, I don't. You think film is central, I don't.

[Aylinn]

I guess that it is simply cheaper to produce a book than a film. And turning a popular book with an already established fan base into a film makes making it even less financially risky.

[mal4mac]

I've taught economics at a top-20 world university for 3 years and worked in the field for a decade. I know what I'm talking about in that discipline. Cassidy's text was one of three recommended to me by one of the most distinguished economic historians alive.

Can we trust you? The subject appears to be in crisis, according to Ha-Joon Chang and Jonathan Aldred, who teach economics at Cambridge University:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/11/after-crash-need-revolution-in-economics-teaching-chang-aldred

"what makes economics so unique is the fact that it is the only academic discipline in which a significant and increasing number of students are in an open revolt against the content of their degree courses."

"They argue that their degrees are not fit for purpose, whether that purpose is preparing students for their future careers in the "real world", or more broadly, equipping them with a good understanding of real world economies."

"The students are increasingly being joined in this protest by leading employers of economics graduates, from the Bank of England, the civil service and the City."

"students and many employers feel that the typical economics graduate today receives a training that is irrelevant to understanding real economies, incomprehensible to the target audiences for economic advice, and often just plain incorrect."

[Poetaster]

^I heard about that. Apparently the Economics class at Harvard all protested by joining the Occupy movement.

[kev67]

Can we trust you? The subject appears to be in crisis, according to Ha-Joon Chang and Jonathan Aldred, who teach economics at Cambridge University:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/11/after-crash-need-revolution-in-economics-teaching-chang-aldred

"what makes economics so unique is the fact that it is the only academic discipline in which a significant and increasing number of students are in an open revolt against the content of their degree courses."

"They argue that their degrees are not fit for purpose, whether that purpose is preparing students for their future careers in the "real world", or more broadly, equipping them with a good understanding of real world economies."

"The students are increasingly being joined in this protest by leading employers of economics graduates, from the Bank of England, the civil service and the City."

"students and many employers feel that the typical economics graduate today receives a training that is irrelevant to understanding real economies, incomprehensible to the target audiences for economic advice, and often just plain incorrect."

I recently watched a couple of lectures on YouTube presented by Ha-Joon Chang. They were very entertaining. He has written several pop-economics books too, such as 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism. He says 95% of economics could be explained simply to the layman, and that it is not such a dark art. He was no great admirer of the way economics is taught in most universities. One thing he said was that the most prestigious academic journals tend not to publish papers that upset the prevailing viewpoints, and academic departments are rated partly in how much they are published.

My brother studied economics at Bristol University. He said it was not much use to him. Everything has changed so much in the twenty-five years since he went there. They did not have all those weird and wacky financial products back then, collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, etc. Now the banks hire the cleverest computer programmers they can find to develop genetic search algorithms to squeeze every last bit of value they can from the stock market.

[Scuberman]

Can we trust you? The subject appears to be in crisis, according to Ha-Joon Chang and Jonathan Aldred, who teach economics at Cambridge University:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/11/after-crash-need-revolution-in-economics-teaching-chang-aldred

"what makes economics so unique is the fact that it is the only academic discipline in which a significant and increasing number of students are in an open revolt against the content of their degree courses."

"They argue that their degrees are not fit for purpose, whether that purpose is preparing students for their future careers in the "real world", or more broadly, equipping them with a good understanding of real world economies."

"The students are increasingly being joined in this protest by leading employers of economics graduates, from the Bank of England, the civil service and the City."

"students and many employers feel that the typical economics graduate today receives a training that is irrelevant to understanding real economies, incomprehensible to the target audiences for economic advice, and often just plain incorrect."

The discipline is in many ways a mess. But note that my recommendation, How Markets Fail is not titled 'How Markets Work'. The book is about how mainstream economic thought is mostly on the right track, but has some deep flaws which have often grave implications when the science is applied to the real world (away from the ivory tower). So, in answer to your question, you can (sort of) trust me.

An interesting aside is that it's difficult to teach students to think as economists, but rather easy to throw them an economic model and test them on it. There's a bias toward these 'easy' lessons because economics professors are as time-poor as the rest of us.

[luhsun]

Most of the soft sciences are in a mess... and not economics alone. Take medicine, for example. Doctors were so dogmatic about treating cholesterol until recently. Many things taught in medical school 20 years ago are downright dangerous today.

[mal4mac]

Most of the soft sciences are in a mess... and not economics alone. Take medicine, for example. Doctors were so dogmatic about treating cholesterol until recently. Many things taught in medical school 20 years ago are downright dangerous today.

But medical students aren't in open revolt against the content of their degree courses. I think there are certain points where a subject is in a bigger crisis than usual, and now it looks like it's the turn of economics. It makes it difficult for the rest of us to know what to read. If the students & professors can't agree on what should be in the courses then how can we trust them to give general readers good recommendations?

"How Markets Fail" does get some good reviews in the newspapers, the FT even suggests it as an antidote to all those bad University courses! (But can we trust the newspapers...)

In the end, I'll probably not read it. I've read the odd book or two on economics in years past, and I find it a very tedious subject. I'm with Thomas Carlyle who called it "the dismal science" (as opposed to the "gay sciences" of song and verse writing.)

"Not a "gay science," I should say, like some we have heard of; no, a dreary, desolate and, indeed, quite abject and distressing one; what we might call, by way of eminence, the dismal science." - Thomas Carlyle

I guess someone has to pursue economics, we need someone to look after the economy, just as we need engineers to look after the mains water system. I've a numerical bent myself (two science degrees) so could probably do it myself, but I'd have to be well paid to do it! I see no reason to spend my unpaid leisure hours pursuing it. I don't read books on "Failures of the Mains Water System", so why should I read a book on "How Markets Fail"?

Note to self - must read Thomas Carlyle (I think there's a good penguin...)

[luhsun]

Medical students are too square to do sit-ins.. they are busy thinking of how to settle their student loans or branching into aesthetic/holistic medicine/money making fields. Economics is analogically closest to psychiatry... i.e. to try to do everything when they know next to nothing. Psychiatry went through so many coup d'etat since the past century, and they are still at each other's throats. It will be interesting to see how economics handle matters.

[Clopin]

Perhaps, but she would be less knowledgeable about page turners and thrillers.

In any case, "Art is perfectly useless, according to the sublime Oscar Wilde, who was right about everything." - Harold Bloom

Your mum is, obviously, getting pleasure from what she reads. All this stress on learning politics, history, etc, etc is just Gradgrindery, as Dickens pointed out in his superb page turner, "Hard Times".



But are these interesting ways? I admire readers your mother who read simply for pleasure. I do not admire the dusty scholar who reads only to learn facts, gain useless understandings, and does this in pursuit of prizes, jobs and.

Give me a breeeeeeak with this "everything is equal if we enjoy ourselves :)" nonsense. You can't honestly believe that someone whose only media consumption consists of "Friends' reruns is going to be as interesting and well rounded as someone who reads good books for the sake of knowledge and pleasure. Your idea that knowledge only serves as some sort of pointless ego gratification, of use to only a few career scholars is actually offensive to me. Knowledge of human history, culture, literature, poetry and philosophy are tremendously enriching and useul things for anyone. If I look to people I've met and admired in my own life, all of them had a genuine curiosity about the world and mankind and they fed this curiosity well with reading.

[Pierre Menard]

I know people whose media consumption is largely re-runs of 'Friends' (A show I find painfully average) who are far more interesting, thoughtful and mature than a number of people I know who 'read good books for the sake of knowledge and pleasure". Reading good books is not a guarantee of being interesting. God, some of the most painfully dull, vapid people I know have similar artistic tastes to me. Whereas some people who are polar opposite, I find endlessly interesting. A person is more than the art they consume.

Of course, reading good books can make someone an interesting, well-rounded individual, but it's no guarantee.

[Clopin]

I know people whose media consumption is largely re-runs of 'Friends' (A show I find painfully average) who are far more interesting, thoughtful and mature than a number of people I know who 'read good books for the sake of knowledge and pleasure". Reading good books is not a guarantee of being interesting. God, some of the most painfully dull, vapid people I know have similar artistic tastes to me. Whereas some people who are polar opposite, I find endlessly interesting. A person is more than the art they consume.

Of course, reading good books can make someone an interesting, well-rounded individual, but it's no guarantee.

"It's no guarantee"

Of course not, but it is a prerequisite. As to all of the many interesting and engaging people you know who do not pursue active interests in film, literature, music, (listening to what comes on the radio top 40 is not an active interest) philosophy, history, photography, painting or this sort of thing I suppose you wouldn't lie to me, but my experience has been different and I think a natural curiosity will always lead to reading informative works and exploring interests which you do by reading about them, at least partially.

I do have interests besides art and history though. I can talk to someone about bodybuilding, running, nutrition and pop culture for awhile and I really admire people who are skilled craftsmen and artisans but if that's all there is to a person then no, they are not interesting to me and their knowlege of the plot points of a few sitcoms or young adult fantasy novels is not equal in quality to someone elses studies into French cinema, neuroscience, biology, medieval history, music, carpentry, engine repair, economics or practically anything else.

[Clopin]

And before someone takes up the "literary fiction is just as bad as the worst of TV and is just entertainment" I have to say that;

1. My argument here is that reading for pleasure alone is less important than reading for education and enrichment (read for pleasure too of course) and so I tend to agree that if you are going to invest the time to read five hundred books do not make all of them 19th centuru novels. Diversify into history, poetry, criticism, non fiction and historical literature/mythology etc.

2. It's straight up wrong. Reading anything engages your mind more than watching a vapid sitcom (watching good tv or movies is engaging as well of course) and you're bound to learn at least some history, biography, contemporary politics and all sorts of things from a classic novel. Jane Eyre is more than just an entertaining love story. On top of that these authors were for the most part brilliant people expressing what was most important to them. Literary fiction will help a person develop by encouraging empathy, giving voice and confident expression to your own thoughts in many cases and at the very least improve your vocabulary and writing through example.

Recently I read Fernando Pessoa's 'The Book of Disquiet' and it brought to mind something Scott Fitzgerald said about how one of the great things about literature is that it can make you feel very much like there exist other people who think like you and that you are not alone in the world. As a loner myself TBOD captured a lot of tenuous feelings I have, or have had and wouldn't have been able to express in my own writing. Pessoa put words to my thoughts and taught me more about myself, especially as viewed through some heteronymic version of the author from the outside. I'm probably not alone in sometimes getting a little too wrapped up in my own world and being exposed to the fact that someone (undoubtedly thousands and thousands of people) have had the exact same life experiences I have was humbling, gratifying and motivational all at the same time.

It certainly was NOT the 'equal' of some derivative garbage like ERAGON because some people happen to enjoy it.

[mal4mac]

Your idea that knowledge only serves as some sort of pointless ego gratification, of use to only a few career scholars is actually offensive to me. Knowledge of human history, culture, literature, poetry and philosophy are tremendously enriching and useul things for anyone. If I look to people I've met and admired in my own life, all of them had a genuine curiosity about the world and mankind and they fed this curiosity well with reading.

I didn't mean to imply that gaining knowledge *always* serves just as some sort of pointless ego gratification. Knowledge is power, so it's often used to gain money and control. But I suppose, gaining knowledge of human history, culture, literature, poetry and philosophy may be, overall, enriching for some. But it can, all so often, be stultifying.

Literature is littered with warnings against stultifying scholarship - I've mentioned "Hard Times", "Middlemarch" (in the character of Casaubon) provides another example. I admire George Eliot, who certainly had a genuine curiosity about the world and mankind, and fed this curiosity well with reading. So well that she draws a great portrait of what happens when reading goes wrong.

I think "mum reading her thrillers" is doing more things right than "dusty old Casaubon". In fact, if she has a true passion for thrillers, and isn't just reading them out of habit, I can't see that she is doing anything wrong at all.

I quite like thrillers myself, just read the latest le Carre, and Ian McEwan's foray into the genre. I can easily believe that a diet of thrillers like this might be just as enriching as a more eclectic mix of literature. But who can tell? All one can do is follow one's passion. If thrillers do it for mum, then that's great. I'm not going to get all snobby and pretend "I'm more enriched than mum" because I'm ploughing through the "Great Books" list of some old Harvard scholar (who may not be dusty, but I have my suspicions...)

My experience has been that of Pierre's, and of course he isn't lying! Again, turn to literature, you'll find a multitude of wonderful, interesting people who never touch a book in Dickens' novels (for example). You might say they aren't "well rounded", but then you're defining "well rounded" as having read a library full of scholarly books, so your argument is getting a bit circular. Give me interesting rather than well rounded!

[mal4mac]

... I really admire people who are skilled craftsmen and artisans but if that's all there is to a person then no, they are not interesting to me...

Come on, unless you went to a *really* good school you must have encountered some teachers who bored you to tears. One I can think of is a biology teacher who read out his old student notes in the most tedious monotone you can imagine. His whole attitude was "failed at research, now I have to be a schoolteacher, but I'll make these kids pay by boring them to tears...". No passion for teaching at all. Really skilled craftsmen and artisans always have more than their craft skills, they have a real passion for what they do, such characters are always *very* interesting to me.

[Clopin]

Chrissake, when did I ever say that EVERYONE who is learned is interesting? This is a huge pet peeve of mine when people argue like this so just stop it, you should know better.

"Again, turn to literature, you'll find a multitude of wonderful, interesting people who never touch a book in Dickens' novels (for example). You might say they aren't "well rounded",'

Uhh... they aren't real, they are a product of Charles Dickens imagination and hey guess what Dickens did? He read a lot of books.

And no I am not defining well rounded as "having read a library full of scholarly books" I defined it pretty clearly as pursuing interests in art as well as other forms of expression or hobbies. Nobody will be well rounded to me however if they don't think about themselves and doing that usually means reading... and not a tv guide or a romance novel.

[mal4mac]

1. My argument here is that reading for pleasure alone is less important than reading for education and enrichment...

I'm an Epicurean - for me pleasure is all.

What use are the great man's riches unless they give him pleasure? This may be a difficult pleasure, or a pain that is the "same thing upon the heights"*. But without pleasure or passion what is enrichment? Looks like a miser's hoard to me... no use to anyone...

*Harold Bloom



... if you are going to invest the time to read five hundred books do not make all of them 19th century novels. Diversify into history, poetry, criticism, non fiction and historical literature/mythology etc.


What's your authority for saying this? My interest centres on the 19th century novel, and I often think I might be better off staying in that "golden age" rather than making my frequent forays into the other areas you mention.

[Clopin]

My interest also centres on 19th century novels but do you seriously want to dispute that getting a historical context for those novels through reading history, a biographical context through biology or a further classical education in the Greeks to pick up on the allusions is not going to help? Let alone reading criticism of the work itself? Why are you even on here quoting Wilde and Bloom or referring to yourself as an Epicurean when you could be on Thrillnet or the official friends forum with all the interesting people who never read instead of on here with all the stiff and stultified bores.

[Clopin]

And hey I love how you quoted me on not reading for pleasure and then said "PAH, what use enrichment if it gives no pleasure?!!?"

Did you miss where I said;

"Read for pleasure too of course"

Immediately after that? I'm going to stop replying to you if you keep arguing like this,

[mal4mac]

Did you miss where I said;

"Read for pleasure too of course"


You put it in parentheses and made it seem like it was of minor importance, compared to "enrichment" (whatever that is) and "education" (facts, facts, facts,....)

[JCamilo]

And before someone takes up the "literary fiction is just as bad as the worst of TV and is just entertainment" I have to say that;

1. My argument here is that reading for pleasure alone is less important than reading for education and enrichment (read for pleasure too of course) and so I tend to agree that if you are going to invest the time to read five hundred books do not make all of them 19th centuru novels. Diversify into history, poetry, criticism, non fiction and historical literature/mythology etc.

This does not hold water. First, you cannot even make up any formula to quantify the importance of any of those vague things you mention (education, enrichment, pleasure), as you sundenly imply that enrichment and education are not pleasant. We only really learn or feel enriched by what we enjoy. The rest we forgot. It makes no sense reading for pleasure only (as it means nothing and only implies that someone is trying pull over that he reads what he likes while others who read different are obviously suffering, since their taste is different.). Just remember, reading is not an activity that is not conected to your other activities, so trying to imply a medicine guide is boring, is trying to imply those reading it, read as part of an activity they enjoy.


2. It's straight up wrong. Reading anything engages your mind more than watching a vapid sitcom (watching good tv or movies is engaging as well of course) and you're bound to learn at least some history, biography, contemporary politics and all sorts of things from a classic novel. Jane Eyre is more than just an entertaining love story. On top of that these authors were for the most part brilliant people expressing what was most important to them. Literary fiction will help a person develop by encouraging empathy, giving voice and confident expression to your own thoughts in many cases and at the very least improve your vocabulary and writing through example.

You will "learn" some history, biography, contemporary politics and all sort of things from anything that cointains that information. The quality is unrelated to the content. Be chat with Ms. Brokenrecord, the old hairdresser that lives in the third floor.

[mal4mac]

My interest also centres on 19th century novels but do you seriously want to dispute that getting a historical context for those novels through reading history, a biographical context through biology or a further classical education in the Greeks to pick up on the allusions is not going to help? Let alone reading criticism of the work itself?

There are few classical allusions in Dickens, and I have enough historical context from dimly remembered school history lessons. Did Dickens advise his readers to read Gibbon, or a shed full of criticism, before approaching his works? No he just gave them the works, and his Victorian readers got great pleasure from them! Me to.

That said, I'm pleased I got the Norton copy of Hardy's "Return of the Native". It's full of classical allusion! I needed the notes. Even there, though, only a few lines of explanation is needed.

In summary, any necessary facts can be provided, in a few lines, at the back of the book, and usually are, so there is no need to read a lot of history, etc.



Why are you .... referring to yourself as an Epicurean when you could be on Thrillnet...


For me this is Thrillnet, reading literature is one of the few unalloyed pleasures of my life.

[luhsun]

Reading for pleasure is easy to claim, as no proof is needed beyond what you subjectively felt. Reading for enrichment...how do you objectively prove you really understood what you have read? You read by yourself, subjectively felt you understood what you have read and maybe smugly felt enriched and different and better. You argue and talk past each others with other dilettantes.
Professionals read exhaustively and write dissertations and will need to successfully defend their novel assertions against professors and maybe even fools. They may rather rightly claim to be made of superior clay.
We mere mortals who read thrillers or classics should be more modest.

[JHG]

Regarding the discussion on professions,

All higher education seems to encounter the same problem in different ways, that the degree is not itself a preparation for the profession. Medical students have a residency which gives them a pre-defined way to turn their medical knowledge gleaned from years of medical school into practical experience. In that they have a luxury (though any current resident would beg to differ with their 80+ hour work weeks). Other professions have no built-in way of turning academic education into everyday practicality. Frankly, I don't see how they could without some kind of unprecedented employment/training pipeline, a la residency.

That does not nullify the purpose of formal education. There instead needs to be a social correction on college and beyond, noting first of all that a degree does not guarantee gainful employment. It is up to the student to recognize the need for practical experience (internships, part-time jobs), connections within their industry, referrals, etc. These requirements are perhaps more important than the academic substance of the education, depending on the field of study. The need to "juggle" is omnipresent in the business world, and should be in the schools that seek to educate future professionals.


Regarding the discussion of entertainment vs. art vs. "enrichment",

They are certainly not mutually exclusive, and I don't understand why there seems to be a rush to classify anything as only one or another.

[mal4mac]

Someone, I forget who, compared scholars to waiters. The reader is the gourmet, the chef is the writer. The waiter's job is to get the dish smoothly from chef to gourmet, maybe helping the customer with translations of the wine list or a few preparation details. The waiter should not bore the reader with long, unrequested, explanations of what is in the menu, or act like a snob with him or her. Too many waiters think they are five star michelin chefs, they should know their place.

[luhsun]

JHG, dentists and lawyers and engineers do also enjoy relatively seamless transitions from university to workplace.

[Clopin]

You put it in parentheses and made it seem like it was of minor importance, compared to "enrichment" (whatever that is) and "education" (facts, facts, facts,....)

"facts, facts, facts,...)"

Did you miss the paragraph or so where I wrote down exactly what I thought was valuable from The Book Of Disquiet? A novel. Because it had nothing to do with 'facts'. You seem to be arguing against me as if you think I'm against reading for pleasure but I have stressed repeatedly that I am not.

As to Dickens he isn't the only novelist you read surely. But alright if you think every area outside of pleasure is unimportant we can agree to disagree. I will just say that I enjoy reading Dosroyevsky or Tolstoy more than I enjoyed sudying French grammar, and vocabulary but now that I can read French works in French and speak a second language I'm much the better for it. I certainly get more pleasure from lying on my couch watching the simpsons and eating potatoe chips than i do working out, but I run daily, eat healthy and lift weights five times a week and this sacrifice of pleasure for discomfort or pain pays off in learning and health.

[JHG]

JHG, dentists and lawyers and engineers do also enjoy relatively seamless transitions from university to workplace.

You may be right - I haven't heard reliable second-hand accounts from Dentists or Engineers. Though I would assert that, for the past 5 years, lawyers and engineers have trouble finding desirable employment (lawyers most certainly - I see that everyday). I'm not sure if Dentists have a training period, or if that is somehow built into their medical schooling.

To further my original point, even medical graduates from distinguished programs have no guarantees of finding a job. They are at the mercy of the dreaded Match program :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Resident_Matching_Program.

But here I ramble to show my personal frustrations.

Seeking to get back on topic,

As usual, with a ambiguous term like "important," we are left with relative judgments and arguments driving towards anything but a conclusion. First we would need a clarification of the term, which I'll ask the OP to provide if he/she is still around.

[mal4mac]

Did you miss the paragraph or so where I wrote down exactly what I thought was valuable from The Book Of Disquiet?...


No, it's one of my favourite books as well, and I enjoyed that paragraph. I agree that literature, "can make you feel very much like there exist other people who think like you and that you are not alone in the world." Pessoa also "put words to my thoughts, and taught me more about myself".



You seem to be arguing against me as if you think I'm against reading for pleasure but I have stressed repeatedly that I am not.


It's more a question of stress. Do you believe in reading mainly for pleasure? Proper education & enrichment should lead to future pleasures, otherwise, why bother?



... if you think every area outside of pleasure is unimportant we can agree to disagree. I will just say that I enjoy reading Dosroyevsky or Tolstoy more than I enjoyed sudying French grammar, and vocabulary but now that I can read French works in French and speak a second language I'm much the better for it. I certainly get more pleasure from lying on my couch watching the simpsons and eating potatoe chips than i do working out, but I run daily, eat healthy and lift weights five times a week and this sacrifice of pleasure for discomfort or pain pays off in learning and health.

I don't think speaking a second language makes anyone better, or worse. There are many examples in history of worse types who spoke more than one language, and better types who only spoke one. I didn't like learning languages, was forced to take French in school and, in protest, didn't do any work, and got Fs. I really liked science and English so got straight As in those.

Is it really so necessary to read an author in his original language? Did you read Pessoa in Portuguese? I used to run several times a week, but my knees started feeling the strain, friends started having hip replacements, so now I walk & cycle instead! I found running a pleasure, until my knees started acting up, except when I was doing it wrong (slow down!) So it wasn't a case of sacrificing pleasure for "learning and health". And what is the point of true learning and health - surely, learning to have pleasure throughout life, and being healthy so things remain pleasurable.

[Clopin]

Look you're treating this like some sort of Sophist exercise in subjectivity and I'm not particularly interested in carrying on in this way any longer. If you want to make stupid arguments like "some bad people know multiple languages so speaking multiple languages isn't beneficial" - as if it isn't obvious that this is perfectly idiotic - then you can keep on keeping on pal.

And I never said reading in the original language was "necessary" now did I, Socrates? But it is beneficial. I love Russian literature and some day I want to read it in the language it was written in. I hate learning languages too by the way (though there is a tremendous 'pleasure' in accomplishment of course).

[mal4mac]

Look you're treating this like some sort of Sophist exercise in subjectivity and I'm not particularly interested in carrying on in this way any longer. If you want to make stupid arguments like "some bad people know multiple languages so speaking multiple languages isn't beneficial" - as if it isn't obvious that this is perfectly idiotic - then you can keep on keeping on pal.


It's obviously beneficial to society that some people speak foreign languages. We need translators! But it is not obvious that learning another language myself would benefit me more than doing other things. I can think of many things that give me pleasure that look like equally valid candidates for benefiting me long term.



And I never said reading in the original language was "necessary" now did I, Socrates? But it is beneficial. I love Russian literature and some day I want to read it in the language it was written in. I hate learning languages too by the way (though there is a tremendous 'pleasure' in accomplishment of course).

Why not accomplish something in a pursuit that you actually enjoy pursuing? Then you get the pleasure in the doing, as well as in the accomplishing. Also, in my experience, the pleasure of having accomplished a goal is vastly over-rated. Like I gained a BSc and that "sense of accomplishment" felt good for a few days, but it quickly passed away. Fortunately I had pursued subjects I (mostly) enjoyed so I had pleasure just pursuing those subjects - this kind of intrinsic pleasure is surely more valid than collecting gongs.

[Clopin]

"But it's not obvious that learning another language would benefit me more than doing other things"

Well I imagine a lot is not obvious to you.

[mal4mac]

Well I imagine a lot is not obvious to you.

As you can't argue without insulting people, which I don't find pleasant or productive, I think I'll make this my last response to you. I'll give you the last word, as you're obviously one who must have the last word. But why not see if you can make it an argument and not an insult?

[stephofthenight]

The giving Tree: this is a childrens book but I believe even an adult can appreciate the truth nestled in the pages. The message is quite profound when it truly sinks in.

[luhsun]

Mal4mac, i am not sure, but i do reckon maybe, just maybe, you need to tweak a bit your hypothesis re: age threshold of cultured, intelligent debate.

[Aylinn]

It's obviously beneficial to society that some people speak foreign languages. We need translators!
Learning languages can also ward off Alzheimer’s disease (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/aging/speaking-second-language-delays-dementias-even-illiterate-study-finds-f8C11544770), so apart from being beneficial to society, it is advantageous to the health of one's brain.

[luhsun]

Such studies are a dime a dozen.. and cannot prove causality. There are too many confounding factors.