My earlier snarky post on the Bible as America's favorite book elicited some great responses from Anglican and Jessika, and actually spurred me to think a little more about it. To a certain degree, I suspect that Jessika is correct, that a great many people choose the Bible because they think it makes them sound righteous. But it could also be, as Anglican notes, that people don't actually read much and so can only think of a few. Perhaps I am too hard on them. But in compiling my own list, I must say that the Bible is no where to be found. I respect the wisdom and lessons, but would have to say that it is not my favorite read. Sorry.
Part of the problem is the vague idea of "favorite book." Favorite what kind? In fiction, my tastes run from thoroughly enjoying what my brother calls "plane trash" or quick reads by Robert Parker or David Baldacci. I also love the Stephen Hunter "sniper series." For a little more serious fare, I love the James Lee Burke "Dave Robicheaux" series and think they are among the best detective fiction ever written. I also think Jon Krakauer's books are fantastic. For slightly better fiction, Michael Malone's "Cuddy and Justin" series are really smart and thoughtful. I reread them often.
Favorite history book? There are many that impress me. William Cronon's Nature's Metropolis and Gordon Wood's Creation of the American Republic still rank as two of the most impressive books I have ever read. Richard White's book on the Columbia river, Paul Boyer's When Time Shall Be No More, Stephen Prothero's American Jesus and the oft mentioned Mark Noll Scandal of the Evangelical Mind are on the short list. Tony Horowitz's Confederates in the Attic and Susan Faludi's Stiffed are also high on my list.
Over the years, the books that have probably changed me the most were those like Hemingway's Old Man and the Sea, Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird (I did read that several times) and Alex Haley's Autobiography of Malcolm X. Those all challenged me at some fundamental level.
So, what are your favorite books? And why?
10 comments:
Good question, Streak. May be a good test is if we've read books more than once. On that basis I'll have to throw Tolkien's Hobbit and LOTR trilogy. I read them at least once a year from 5th grade on through college and am due another run through it.
Some of the "plane reads" don't really qualify for me as favorite books but maybe "favorite brain candy" AUTHORS i.e. I'll grab Baldacci's next one for the next trip but most likely won't think of it again after it's done.
Others to follow
BB
I also question what it means for a book to be a "favorite." It's more common for me to find favorite authors (where I'm more comfortable leaving "favorite" unqualified) than favorite books, because with sufficiently deep authors I can find a fit for the mood I'm in or topic I'm obsessing over more easily than with a single publication. I would have to think for a while to list several, but Isaac Asimov would definitely make the short list (though I think his character development is wretched).
But...
As far as books go, I have to go with Lord of the Rings. I would physically beat anyone who suggested that (apart from a few good exchanges) Tolkien's dialogue ought to be a model for aspiring writers, but the story and the depth of his worldbuilding are just astounding. I read them at least once a year, and have since I was nine or so.
I realize that this is almost as big of a cliche as the Bible, but To Kill A Mockingbird had a profound effect on me. I read it (as many of us did) in high school, and I've returned to it many times since.
More recently (as in last year), I read Everything is Illuminated and was deeply, deeply moved by it.
I am kind of like leighton. I don't have much stuff that I read over and over and any list that I came up with now would likely be different in a few years. I mostly read fantasy/science fiction or just fiction, but I also enjoy some non-fiction (this blog steered me towards Jack Goldsmith's account of working for the OLC).
Despite my love for fantasy, I am going to say that I really don't care for the LOTR. I read the series (along with the Hobbit) twice. Once when I was 11 and again when I was in my 30's. The world buildin and the depth were awesome, but the dialog was terrible and the pacing slow. To this day, it still kind of bothers me that I don't like it...geeks like me are supposed to like LOTR. David Brin has an interesting take on the series.
I also liked To Kill a Mockingbird and can say it had an impact on me. Another was Cry, The Beloved Country by Alex Paton.
I too read the LOTR series once a year for several years. I have a love/hate thing with them, actually. I think the Hobbitt is brilliant, and the first two books of the trilogy are amazing. All of the things you guys said about them. The third book (and film) just wore me out. Too much war, and too much contrast between the nostalgic rural world of the Hobbitts and the industrial and modern (WWI?) of the orcs.
Still, amazing writing and amazing characters. Parker Palmer is a great author, BB--nice catch there, and thanks for alerting me to him.
Hey - Just realized I posted my books on the bible thread. Oops. I will add that the LOTR has always been a bit of a guilty pleasure book. I liked the good vs evil, salvation from the least likely places, evil was clearly delineated, strong male characters. On the other hand, as I've matured I realized how color coded Tolkien's world was i.e. light was good and dark was evil. This extended into the characters themselves- height and fair skin= noble whereas small, dark, or malformed = evil. Not the best allegory for the real world but I have always loved the adventure and fantasy part of it. When the Silmarillion came out I thought my world had become complete!:-).
Later- BB
Hobbits were pretty small and trolls were huge, but there wasn't any correlation between nobility and size there. I think the friendship between Gimli and Legolas was meant to show that there are different kinds of nobility which take some working before they can coexist, but that they are ultimately compatible.
What does bother me a bit is his insinuation in the text, and his explicit commentary outside the text, that the phonology of language is the real indicator--determinant even--of the nobility of its speakers. Elegant, mellifluous languages like Elvish (which is much like Latin but with even fewer consonants that tax the tongue) are unequivocally good, and their speakers noble. Orcish and the Black Speech of Mordor, with their plethora of hard consonants and truncated vowels reminiscent of German, invariably lead their speakers to darkness, madness and evil. That's a bit too much of a cultural bias to excuse in a professional philologist, IMO. But I still like the stories.
Leighton - hate to make this a LOTR debate, but I disagree on the size issue. It wasn't true necessarily when comparing between races, but particularly when dealing specifically with Men (as a race/species) height was frequently associated with nobility. The Númenórean blood-line was considered the most noble and the descendants were particularly tall. Aragorn was noted as being very tall and having great physical resemblance to his ancestors in that regard. I think it was one of those themes that is picked up fairly subtly in the books- not an out and out statement. This is all based on recall and I don't have page and verse so if this may be one of those things that just I picked up on.
Of course, I feel that to a large degree this still holds true. If you could see me standing next to Streak there would be no question who was from the royal line and who is likely at least part hobbit. How he managed to woo an elven princes is beyond me:-).
Later- BB
"Part hobbit?"
Oh, the ass kicking...
Post a Comment