|
I agree with you about Dan Brown (one of God's little jokes on the ignorant readership of today).
But chucking in a whole bunch of non-English authors is coming it a bit strong.
Also, keep in mind that, to English-speaking readers, only Russian and Japanese novelists write convincingly.
Romance language authors, in particular, are stuck in a kind of "picaresque", broad, and psychologically naive mode.
Not because they lack skill, but because that mode is most conducive to sending the clunky political messages which they believe is the purpose of novel writing.
Bar those South Americans who are positively influenced by Borges, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
Robert g Blair wrote: But chucking in a whole bunch of non-English authors is coming it a bit strong.
Yes it is - as is implicitly relegating all non English people in the lowest ranks.
Robert g Blair wrote: Romance language authors, in particular, are stuck in a kind of "picaresque", broad, and psychologically naive mode.
Not because they lack skill, but because that mode is most conducive to sending the clunky political messages which they believe is the purpose of novel writing.
I totally agree with this observation, and that's why I read a lot of non Italian books!
Geek code v 3.12 {
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
}
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I'm definitely not average - was reading at least one book a week since my 10th birthday (and I'm 41 now). Do the calcs, I can't be bothered. I've read 54 of the 100, some of those multiple times in different editions (especially the Sherlock Homes versions).
But I'm definitely with the idea that the list is suspect. E.g. it lists Roald Dahl's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". But in my mind (having read all 3) the more popular books of his would be "The Gremlins" and "Matilda" (both which has been made into films one even inspiring a whole series of films). Even "James and the Giant Peach" is at least as memorable as CatCF. And with the Charles Dickens novels it's even worse - the list includes Bleak House, David Copperfield, Great Expectations & A Christmas Carol. What? Oliver Twist didn't make the cut, but those did!
And IMO if they want to include several of Charles Dickens' novels (even if they missed his most popular one), then why not rather include Lemony Snicket's (Daniel Handler) "A Series of Unfortunate Events"? And if they include only "classics", then what the Elephant got into them to exclude Edgar Allan Poe from the list? The Sherlock Holmes collection made it in, but not even a mention of any of Agatha Christie's novels - WTE?
And then if they want to blazon multiple books by one writer, then why only Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit (by JRRT)? Why not also "The Children of Húrin" and "The Silmarillion". And I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they saw LoR as the entire trillogy, not just the first volume! Of course, if the books are only those from which films were made, then it makes sense. Same goes for Frank Herbert's Dune series - I hope by "Dune" they mean the entire set of novels he's written (not just the first volume - which was named Dune, but also Dune Mesiah, The Children of Dune, God Emperor of Dune, Heretics of Dune & Chapter-house Dune) including those his son wrote after his death to finally finish the saga (Hunters of Dune, Sandworms of Dune, Winds of Dune & Sisterhood of Dune) and include the prequels to all the great houses (The Machine Crusade, The Butlerian Jihad, House Atriedes, House Harkonnen, House Corrino, etc.).
My biggest gripe however: Douglas Adams' "Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy" is in ... none of the rest (which actually comprised most of the stuff shown in the movie). But much much worse: Terry Pratchett didn't even get a single reference! What Hogfather, Going Postal, The Colour of Magic - all 3 of which has been made into films. And "Soul Music" as a children's animated series also didn't make it? That's ignoring any of the 100s of other books he's written.
|
|
|
|
|
I just checked if there are any such lists done where I live, and here[^] is one. In Swedish but with original title in the list.
I don't agree anymore on it, but at least it's seriously thought through.
|
|
|
|
|
Totally agree. Then, this is a "yet another top x list" from the internet...
|
|
|
|
|
"least one book a week since my 10th birthday"
Never mind the quality, feel the width!
|
|
|
|
|
It's a vice ... 
|
|
|
|
|
I read 55.
I didn't count those that I started, and put down as unreadable (by me anyway), like Ulysses, Cold Comfort Farm, Confederacy of Dunces and others).
There were quite a few books on the list I would never read (Dan Brown, Margaret Attwood, Ian McEwan) because reviews warn me off (often by reviewers who like the books).
The review of "The Da Vinci Code" was so fall down funny that when I did try to read the Da Vinci Code, I just had to put it down from laughing.
And there are several on the list that I wont read, having read other books by that author (such as Gabriel Garcia Marquez).
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed, mine was also only the books I have in fact completely read through. Though I'm a bit less sensitive to reviews.
But I can definitely say I agree fully about Dan Brown ... most of the stuff in Da Vinci Code is so far fetched or outright impossible that it becomes a satire without his intent. Which is why I continued reading it - saw it as a comedy instead of a mystery/fantasy-adventure. Actually, after reading it I came across a satire based on it - exactly making fun of those "stupid" concepts Dan "invented".
The De Villiers Code[^]
I actually re-read Da Vinci afterwards, and found new places to laugh at since the De Villiers Code indicated stuff I missed the first time round. And thus in turn I then went and read equally stupid stuff from Dan Brown like Angels & Demons, The Lost Symbol & Digital Fortress. Again - I needed to see it as comical satire, else I'd have become disgusted by it.
|
|
|
|
|
28.
46 is not bad, congrats ! Were you forced, or was it by choice ? (I ask because I have 5 I _had_ to read in school).
|
|
|
|
|
Never forced...I love the library...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
I did not count things I could not finish : crimes and punishment, well, I gave up after a while... I could add about 100+ Sci Fi books to the list, though.
|
|
|
|
|
I read 19. I've watched the movies/children's TV series of quite a few though...
|
|
|
|
|
I'll admit, I'm not an avid reader. I only scored 11. Half of them were part of my university course requirements -- the 11, not the 100.
The difficult may take time, the impossible a little longer.
|
|
|
|
|
A bit disappointing, expected I would have read more...
|
|
|
|
|
A Whopping 11, LOL. And I have to admit most of those where Required Reading in HS, although I enjoyed a few on my own.
Of course, they missed the critical books:
- Algorithms, Sedgewick
- Mythical Man Month, Brooks
- Effective Oracle, Kyte
- Code Complete, McConnell
- How to Solve it, Polya
etc..
I did see a few of the movies...
Maybe I don't have the cultural diversity I thought I did...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of the BBC list? Perhaps a dozen. But that list has a LOT of really bad or boring books. I've read over 20,000 books. I average at least one a day -- I have read two Brad Thor books since I got up yesterday evening ("The apostle" and "Foreign Influence"). I still have every one of them that wasn't borrowed. My daughter is starting to read some of them. I read "Gone With the Wind" and loved it - in the 3rd grade (its also what lead me to getting unlimited borrowing privileges in grade school  ).
There are some great books, but not that many "classical" books are great. There were some good - even great - books written in the past (I love Sherlock Holmes, for instance) - but most of Charles Dickens' books are complete crap. While there are a huge number of garbage books written today, some far eclipse anything written in the past. Especially once the publisher's page limit was broken a few decades ago.
|
|
|
|
|
"not that many "classical" books are great"
"most of Charles Dickens' books are complete crap"
Books, and reading, like guns and computers, are morally neutral.
They can be used for good or ill, or to no purpose.
Reading the back of the Kellog's Corn Flake packet every morning for 20 years is not, IMHO, going to do much to "improve your mind".
Reading a Mills & Boon romance novel every day may have an impact on your mind, but not necessarily a good one.
Anyone who can couple the two quotes above with "I've read 20,000 books" seriously doesn't get it.
And how can you read 20,000 books with stumbling, even accidentally, into some of the really great classics?
By my calculation, assuming you are less than 50 years old, say 45, and that you started reading novels in your teens, say 15, then you have been reading more than two books a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
As a keen reader myself, I wonder how you keep the supply?
|
|
|
|
|
First, I started reading before 5, got into heavier reading around 7 (starting with Gone With the Wind) and am over 60 now and retired. I was probably the only kid who wrote to Tom Swift, Jr. instead of Santa Claus! I read very fast and always have (not rushing it, just my natural reading speed). When I was working, I would typically read half a book during lunch and the other half over dinner. Frequently more after dinner. I have never watched much TV. Don't even have one right now.
So far today, I have read two theses on logic, half a dozen papers on logic and half of a Brad Thor (Hidden Order). Yes, I have had enough time to read 20,000 books. I will frequently find an author I haven't read before (latest, Brad Thor - so far, all of them are excellent) and buy all of their books and read them all, back to back. I am currently reading about a half-dozen books - some online and some physical. I stopped buying magazines several decades ago. The stories are just too short. Even entire books tend to be too short. I really like a good, well-plotted series.
Before I retired, I typically spent several hundred dollars per week at various bookstores and online. I had one bookstore clerk tell me that I was buying too many books! I categorize my books by the room, not by the bookshelf or even book case.
Sure, I have read some "classics". I have read some Shakespeare (none of which impressed me), all of H.G. Wells books, Sherlock Holmes, etc.. The H.G. Wells books are dated but pretty good for early teens. I love Sherlock Holmes, including the modern takeoffs. But, just because an author published books 150 years ago, and their books are now "classics" does NOT make them good books! I have much higher standards than most "classics" can meet. I especially loathe Dickens' books. I have (unfortunately) read several and have not found a single one worth reading. Even worse is the "Great Gatsby" and "Lord of the Flies". Yes, I have read both "Pride and Prejudice" and "Sense and Sensibility" by Jane Austen. Not bad, but there are much better romances written today.
How can there not be? In the 1800's there were only a few authors, outside of the "penny dreadfuls" (which I have never seen, but would like to). Now, there are 100s of thousands of authors. Even if 99.9% of them are wasting ink - that still leaves 100s who are turning out incredibly good books.
I don't judge a book by when or by whom it was written. I judge a book by how I like it, how simplistic or complex it is (excessively complex does not necessarily mean good, but excessively simple usually means bad). Is it good entertainment? That is, after all, the purpose of fiction. If someone writes a book to draw attention to some circumstance, it is rarely a book really worth reading. Most books that win "awards" or are "coffee table books" are complete crap. Most of what David Webber writes is very good. The "War of Light and Shadow" series by Janny Wurts is extremely good. Shame we only get a new one every 4 or 5 years. Today, many authors are not writing a single book at a time, but a very involved and complex series of books spanning multiple arcs. The quality that goes into some of those is incredible.
There are very few genres I haven't read. Not really fond of horror. I read far more than fiction. Just my computer / mathematics books fills around 8 7' x 3.5' bookcases. I taught myself Topology from Nicolas Bourbaki in high school.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 11816776 wrote: I started reading before 5, got into heavier reading around 7 (starting with Gone With the Wind) and am over 60 now and retired.
So that's just over 20000 days worth of lifetime during which you've read. So you'd have to average at least one book a day to get your 20000 mark to calc.
Member 11816776 wrote: So far today, I have read two theses on logic, half a dozen papers on logic and half of a Brad Thor (Hidden Order).
So then the 20000 books includes non-fiction, documentation, etc. Do you count stuff like novellas as a "book" as well? What about short stories? If so, then I can definitely believe your numbers - but a 200 to 600 page fiction novel each day? Really?
|
|
|
|
|
I don't count novellas, short stories (not really much difference), newspapers, catalogs, etc.. Those are usually bathroom material. I also don't count individual technical papers, but certainly 200-300 page PhD theses DO count. Each of those is equal to a couple of normal books because you have to take them much slower. Not that I read one of those every day or even every week.
I always have at least two books in my "bag" when I go out. I have a directory named "papers" which contains technical papers across dozens of subjects that I have downloaded and read. There are around 16,000 papers in that directory. I have boxes more of physical papers that I copied out of journals before I could get (some of) them off the web.
Of course, I count more than fiction. Naturally, the vast majority of that is fiction. I find that reading a new non-fiction book can be just as entertaining as reading a fiction book. Surely, reading a non-fiction book counts as "expanding the mind?". Or is that something you only do when necessary?
But, "a 200 to 600 page fiction novel each day? Really?"
Yes, really. And, I usually find time to get in 10-12 hours a day for working on my current project plus the usual life overhead. Do you read so slow that would be a problem? Why do you have trouble believing me? Do you need a remedial reading course? I am neither lying nor exaggerating.
Reading is THE most fundamental skill that you can have. If you can't read well, quickly and with comprehension then you will be behind in life. We home-schooled our eldest daughter. We delayed her education by a year just to focus on reading. It worked. She is a young adult now, but she has been able to read everything regardless of difficultly level. Home schooling consisted mostly of handing her a book, telling her to read it and do the exercises. We checked the results and answer the occasional question where the books weren't clear (mostly in mathematics). Whenever she became interested in a subject, all we had to do was to buy her a few books (always, always, get more than one viewpoint) and she was off to the races.
|
|
|
|
|
I tend to not do speed reading for pleasure - I "read" things like novels without even noticing that I read it. I.e. I "live" the story, not noticing that I turn pages or any such. I find it much more enjoyable doing so - that is the main reason I read fiction, not to better myself, but because I enjoy it.
However, it also means I don't complete the book as fast as when I speed read. I.e. a 200 page book would take me 2 to 3 hours, instead of a few minutes of speed reading. But I have too much other stuff going on to allow for much more than a few hours each day (between 10 and 18 hours, minimum of 5 days a week, of full time actual work - no breaks other than a few minutes as coffee break). I then make up for it my hitting some extended reading session (usually over weekends) where I would complete several books over the course of two days.
modified 14-Sep-15 10:40am.
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty much the same here. I don't speed read for pleasure and no point in it for highly technical material.
However, having learned the hard way at the famous school specializing in those lessons, I make a point of taking breaks, not to overwork and even take naps as appropriate. It may seem like a waste of time, but it is actually more productive and results in fewer errors. I also mix in mountain hiking which is a good way to relax and work on a problem. If I get a bit stale intellectually, I up the hiking and fiction reading (or reading on a completely unrelated topic).
Since, I don't watch TV and my interests ARE what I do (which intrinsically involve considerable research), I do get a lot of reading done.
|
|
|
|
|
I have read every one that I wanted to.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
