What's the most influential book you've ever read?Follow

Back after the kitten stuff:
The kitten is fine and currently seperated from my cats to make sure it doesn't have anything contagious (or so that my cats won't eat it). Put up "found kitten" sign in the neighborhood, but still no "accurate" responses yet when calls come in for descriptions. It's a sweet little thing, but not sure why it decided to run into MY apartment (cats were going crazy at the window, so I opened up the door to see why... and ZOOM!).
I think I'm going to give it a week and then I'll have to try to either find it a place or take it to get its shots. I've already got 4 cats though (2 are my girlfriends, so it's not like I'm one of those crazy cat people) so I'm not too keen on having a 5th.



...but its still a cute kitten...

*sigh* Sorry for derail.

The Stand was a labor of love to read. Good book, but definitely took some effort to get through the unabridged version. I prefer IT, however. I think there is something absolutely wonderful about the way King brings these characters together as children and creates this bond of love between them, and then brings them together 27 years later and resurrects that bond, and makes it very real and convincing. The pacing toward the end as each section bounces back and forth between 1957 and 1984, one section leading into another so seemlessly that it often takes a moment to realize you've changed decades, is absolutely brilliant. It's one of the few books that actually moves me to tears in the last chapter, as Bill is dreaming about leaving Derry and the childhood he can't quite remember and how much he loved the children they were back then. Absolutely wonderful book.



I think it's somewhat misleading to call it a feminist novel. Certainly, subsequent to its publication, it has been claimed by feminists as a groundbreaking piece of literature, and for good reason, but I don't believe that Marion Zimmer Bradley wrote it with that particular agenda. As Bradley herself said:

Marion Zimmer Bradley via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mists_of_Avalon wrote:

About the time I began work on the Morgan le Fay story that later became MISTS, a religious search of many years culminated in my accepting ordination in one of the Gnostic Catholic churches as a priest. Since the appearance of the novel, many women have consulted me about this, feeling that the awareness of the Goddess has expanded their own religious consciousness, and ask me if it can be reconciled with Christianity. I do feel very strongly, not only that it can, but that it must... So when women today insist on speaking of Goddess rather than God, they are simply rejecting the old man with the white beard, who commanded the Hebrews to commit genocide on the Philistines and required his worshippers daily to thank God that He had not made them women... And, I suppose, a little, the purpose of the book was to express my dismay at the way in which religion lets itself become the slave of politics and the state. (Malory's problem ... that God may not be on the side of the right, but that organized religion always professes itself to be on the side of the bigger guns.) ... I think the neo-pagan movement offers a very viable alternative for people, especially for women, who have been turned off by the abuses of Judeo-Christian organized religions

(bolding mine)

From this, I read that Bradley intended the book to be not so much feminist propaganda, but a statement on the intermingling of politics and religion, which often leaves minority religions--and the people they represent--disenfranchised. If you read the full passage from which that exerpt was taken (linked at the bottom of the wikipedia page on the book) she professes skepticism about radical feminism. She seems to be writing from the standpoint not of promoting feminism, but of correcting Malory's oversight in omitting and misrepresenting the roles of female characters when he wrote Le Morte d'Arthur

The reason the feminist movement zeroed in on the novel was because it did something few novels (at the time at which it was written) had done--it acknowledged that there had been a place and time in history where women had weilded a considerable amount of power. But that's not agenda speaking--it's simply historical fact. The pagan tribes of Britain and a good deal of Europe were frequently both matrilineal and matriarchical, until the Roman conquest spread Roman concept of patrilinealism. As the only way to insure patrilineal descent, there needed to be an emphasis on virginity and marital monogamy for females, removing their personal freedoms with regards to how and when and with whom they had sex. In order to accomplish this, females were relegated to a secondary and more subservient status. This would, of course, create conflict with cultures where women were accustomed to a more prominent and powerful role and greater freedom of self-determination. Again, simple historical fact.

The spread of Christianity compounded this conflict, a great deal of Christian doctrine having been forumlated to merge and reinforce the "rightness" of both Hebrew and Roman patrilineal descent and patriarchical rule. Hence, the use of the fable of Eve being the originator of all sin to emphasize the "unworthiness" of females to share power with men, the upholding of Mary as the virgin archetype to which all women should aspire, and the Gospels setting forth edicts that women should be submissive and obedient.

So, I think it misrepresents the book a little to call it a "feminist" novel. To call it such conveys the idea that the novel was written with an agenda, and I don't think that argument can be very well supported. It is, however, a novel which acknowledges the historical existence of matriarchy and calls into question the often traumatic means by which patriarchy was promulgated.



Edited, Jan 7th 2007 2:55am by Ambrya

I happened to be graced with perhaps the best used book store in the history of used books store no more than two blocks down my street.

I made a trek there this morning after hitting up my favorite breakfast place this morning. For 30 bucks I found The Book of Five Rings, Steppenwolf and Catch-22. As well as most of the RA Salvatore/Drizzt series. Add to the fact that I just picked up the Illiad and Odyssey and I now have a huge stack of books on my 'read' list.

Oh and varus, it is the Brothers Karamazov. Good book,, hope you enjoy it and perhaps learn something from it!

If I can read through Moby D'ick or The Divine Comedy then I can read throughanything /stubborn!

Yup, Moby Dick is another one. i found it easier going by imaginig Gregory Peck as Ahab

My top picks may or may not have been already noted are


A Sluaghter House Five

The Giver (directed to a younger crowd but a damn goo book)

The Killer Angels (the book that the movie gettysburg was based on)

FightClub

Job: A Comedy of Justice Robert Heinlein
Justine, Philosophy in the Bedroom and other Writings Marquis de Sade
Everything is Under Control Robert A. Wilson
Garden of Pomegranates Israel Regardi (annotated by Tabitha and Chic Cicero)
Liber Al vel Legis
Beowulf: A New Verse Translation Seamus Heaney

slaughter-house five and night

Let's see:

~A Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood. Not a chick book...it makes you think.

~Hitchhiker's Guide Trilogy(that's not a trilogy) - Douglas Adams

~Huckleberry Finn - Mark Twain. So many schools have banned it, so I mention it. If you haven't read it, please do.

~Lord Valentine's Castle - Robert Silverberg. He turned me onto fantasy novels, other than horror.

~Skye O'Malley - Bertrice Small. Ok, I realize this is a romance, but it was highly influential to me. I ended up studying history in college as a result of this author. She's extremely accurate in her details, which is noteable.

~Sarum - Edward Rutherford. Awesome book! His stories follow family lines from, in this case, the end of the ice age to present time. It's fascinating.

That's it for now. I'm sure there are more I'll think of later. Great suggestions everyone!

The Silmarillion pretty much is The Bible of Middle-Earth. Creation of heavens and earth, the dissident and fallen angels, betrayals and tests of faith, some prodigious fathers and tribes of sons.

I never cared about this trilogy, not for the characters and definitely not the story itself. Originality isn't really a factor (and definitely not in fantasy of any kind), but still, it just wasn't fun at all for me to read it.

Don't want to go to deep into why not, don't want to post any spoilers, but it just lacked so much imo. Apart from the first two Harry Potter books, this trilogy felt a lot more than a true kids book than HP did.

Just a different taste I suppose.

Guess so; I didn't like the first book much, but as it helped flesh out Lyra's character in the next two a lot more, it was worth reading. Different strokes for different folks and whatnot!

I forgot two other books:

"All Souls" - Michael Patrick MacDonald
This is a great book if you want an insight to how messed up Southie can be. Being from MA, it felt like it was in my own backyard. It's the sort of thing that people would never talk about, but here is an eyewitness account. It reminds me a lot of that quote from Boondock Saints:


"The Pursuit of Happyness" - Chris Gardner
Just started reading it, and no, I haven't seen the movie. I'm about a third of the way through, and I'm struck by how much it feels like I'm reading "All Souls" again. Ignorance, family violence, and inaction seem to be the trademarks of ghetto lifestyles, no matter where that ghetto may be, or what color race lives there. Anyway, I can tell it's going to be a great story; at least I know that while the journey will be tough, the author comes out on top in the end. "All Souls" didn't really have that (although the author is doing decently well now, he certainly isn't Chris Gardner).




... Like this one:

And this one:

Just saying :-P