The Most Overrated Books Showing 1,401-1,450 of 5,680

[Stephanie]

Chad wrote: "The Bible and the Koran
Anything by Ayn Rand
Ulysses, Gravity's Rainbow, and The Sound and the Fury
The Wheel of Time series
Anything by L. Ron Hubbard
19th century chick-lit in general"

Glad to know I am not the only one who responded to this discussion question with the Holy Bible. I also agree with you on chick-lit from the 1800s.
:)

[Paul Martin]

Stephanie wrote: "Chad wrote: "The Bible and the Koran
Anything by Ayn Rand
Ulysses, Gravity's Rainbow, and The Sound and the Fury
The Wheel of Time series
Anything by L. Ron Hubbard
19th century chick-lit in genera..."

I'd say it depends on what you mean. Is the bible overrated as a manual for how to live your life? Undoubtedly.

Is it overrated as a work of literature? I don't know, others will have to judge.

Is it overrated as a way of understanding references, stories, symbols, allegories, etc in western society? Not at all, in my experience.

[Chad]

A generation ago, I'd say you would have been right, Paul. But Biblical allusions are gradually disappearing from public discourse, and to the extent they exist, most can be learned in other ways than actually reading page after page of begats. It's definitely a book where the cliff notes or movie will do.

[Paul Martin]

Chad wrote: "But Biblical allusions are gradually disappearing from public discourse"

True, but they will still remain in the enormous amount of literature from the past 2000 years.

most can be learned in other ways than actually reading page after page of begats.

I agree, in a way. I've done this myself on many occasions, although I do feel that I get a stronger grip and relationship to the reference, allegory or whatever when it reflects a biblical story that I've actually read.

[Kallie]

"Petergiaquinta wrote: "Kallie writes, I don't understand how and why high school reading became less challenging.

At the moment, public education is facing a crisis regarding the question of the importance of reading l...

Well said indeed. And it's been a long time coming -- since Prop 18, in California, where I noticed that my younger sisters weren't getting the same public school education I had received. It's as though most people should content themselves with being wage slaves. We have discussed dystopia in this forum; not a (strictly speaking) future phenom. I laugh reading George Saunders, but I also feel a chill of recognition. Perhaps those of us who read literature will get work in zoo exhibits one day.

[Mark]

Paul Martin wrote: "I'd say it depends on what you mean ..."

I think I'm in the same zone as Paul regarding the Bible and (I'd say by extension) the Koran.

To repeat what I said earlier when someone other than Chad nominated the Bible as overrated (even before Stephanie did), those really aren't works of literature per se (although they can be treated that way) as much as they are the texts of mythologies. The Bible, the Koran, the Talmud, the Popul Vuh, the Upanishads ... these are (maybe "were" in the case of the Popul Vuh) held to be sacred texts by certain groups of believers.

It really throws an outlier category of books into the mix. In the same way the original list set up a discussion lacking in specificity (if not flawed from the get-go) by putting a YA title such as Twilight and mainstream pop fiction such as The Da Vinci Code in the same set as Moby Dick and Ulysses.

That's not an assertion, by the way, that I can offer empirical proof that Stephenie Meyer and Dan Brown are less talented and less worthwhile writers to read by an order of magnitude than are Herman Melville or James Joyce (it certainly is my unshakeable opinion, but I'd be hard pressed to offer empirical proof ... plus we've been down that road anyway).

So the parts of this discussion that attempt to directly answer the question "Which books do you think are overrated?" have been, to my mind, a kind of garbage in-garbage out process, because the question is so unspecific as to be useless for anything other than a person saying, "Here are some titles of books that enjoyed some level of popularity that I didn't like."

It's really the parts of this thread that have drifted further away from that original question that I've found most interesting.

[Paul Martin]

Mark wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: It's really the parts of this thread that have drifted further away from that original question that I've found most interesting.

Absolutely agree, but I just feel some sort of social obligation to make a reply to the ones that just drop in with a comment concerning the original question/theme of the thread. After all, it's not their fault that this has turned into something else entirely, and I certainly don't expect them to read all 30 pages before writing a comment.

[Mark]

Chad wrote: "A generation ago, I'd say you would have been right, Paul. But Biblical allusions are gradually disappearing from public discourse, and to the extent they exist, most can be learned in other ways than actually reading page after page of begats. It's definitely a book where the cliff notes or movie will do."

You know, Chad, if pressed into defining my outlook on matters spiritual, I'd probably say I'm a secular humanist. I would not protest if someone wanted to consider or call me an atheist, but I would not use that term to describe myself of my own volition because, as Heinrich Böll's Hans Schnier said of atheists, "They bore me because all they ever talk about is God."

That said, I think your observations in this post are cavalier and backed up by ... what? I gave that background bit because I didn't want the following rant to be misinterpreted as some zealot who's stung because you've dissed "the good book, the living word."

Is it the case that "biblical allusions are gradually disappearing from public discourse"? Or is it more the case that people no longer know that many of the tropes and phrases they're employing in public discourse come from that source? In the same way, the language of public discourse today is still peppered with sayings, compound words and bons mots Shakespearean in origin and most of us don't realize that when we use them.

I think Paul was hasty in giving this statement a "true," because I doubt that it is. That public discourse has degraded to the point where people don't know they're alluding to Shakespeare or the Bible, I have no doubt. But is fading knowledge about the source of the allusions the same as fading use of the allusions?

I'd agree that the "begats" sections of the good book can be skipped over without missing much at all (unless you're a biblical scholar of some sort, I suppose). But I hardly see that as an excuse to go to the cliff notes or a movie version (perhaps you were just being facetious there).

I say that because my second point would be that there are moments of high poetry in the Bible (and, again, I'm not a believer in any form of organized religion nor do I believe in a personal god). For sheer economy and cadence of language, the Bible often hits on all eight cylinders.

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."

One that's a little less common:

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

Powerful poetic use of the English language. All of these are from the King James version. All the newer translations that try to make the language more accessible tend to dilute the power of the language.

[Petergiaquinta]

Mark wrote: "It's really the parts of this thread that have drifted further away from that original question that I've found most interesting. "

Yes indeedy...at the risk of moving away from my own recent post about trends in American public education devaluing the role of fiction and literature in the classroom (and I apologize for not labeling my discussion as focused on "American" values in public education; however, I'm curious about whether other countries are doing something similar these days by promoting non-fiction or informational texts over literature in the classroom), I'm also vastly interested in the discussion of the Bible as "overrated" literature.

Here's my own two cents' worth: Certainly the Bible is a great piece of literature like these other sacred works Mark mentions based on its cultural/historical significance. But it's also a great work of literature that resonates with importance based on the way that so much of Western thought grows out of it and also in the way that if you want to be an informed reader of Western literature you need to have a good grasp on what's going on in the Bible. It's the first and best example of what Mark called "intertextuality" the other day. And it continues to be alluded to; this isn't something that's going to go away any time soon.

I would say, though, and this will cause problems with other readers no doubt, that some sacred texts make better "literature" than others, and certain parts of sacred texts are infinitely more "literary" than others. For example, parts of the Bible are beautifully written while other parts are lists of rules and "begats." The book of Leviticus is not particularly interesting or literary in its entirety. But over all there are more rich characters and interesting stories running through the Bible than there are these dull areas. The Bible is much more than just the book of Leviticus or the Minor Prophets.

As a reader, and not a particularly "religious" person, the Koran/Quran is something I'm working my way through this year. In contrast to the Bible, it is remarkably devoid of character and plot. I keep looking for narratives, but there isn't a lot to offer there. So as a work of "literature," and not sacred text, I would tend to value it less. However, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana are probably superior to the Bible in this respect...there's some seriously good reading there, and in the West most of us probably are not as conversant with these texts as we should be. The Mahabharata, like the Odyssey or the Iliad, may very well be one of the greatest stories ever told. It is also chock full of its own versions of Leviticus and the Minor Prophets, but there are plenty of editions that boil the enormous text down for readers and take the "boring" parts out.

Now, if we could only get back to a discussion of fiction in the American classroom...(nevermind, this new thread we're on is infinitely more interesting!).

[Paul Martin]

Mark wrote: I think Paul was hasty in giving this statement a "true," because I doubt that it is.

Fair enough, I'll concede.

But, given the fact that (as far as I know) most western, and many eastern, democracies are becoming increasingly secular, is it not plausible to assume that biblical allusions are less prevailing in whatever is being written today than they were, say, 100 years ago?

I do not doubt at all that "tropes and phrases" that hail from Shakespeare and The Bible will continue to be used indefinitely, but I think Chad's point (and I'm inclined to agree on this) was that the intentional allusions to The Bible (less so with Shakespeare, because there is no indelible link with Christianity) are, and will be, a lot less frequent than they used to be. Can you imagine East of Eden being written today?

Of course, I have no evidence for this, just my reasoning.

[Mark]

Paul Martin wrote: "was that the intentional allusions to The Bible ..."

That the allusions are still being made and it's just that people are more inclined to not attribute them as such or be ignorant that they are allusions at all was my point. If it was also Chad's point, I either didn't read what he said carefully enough to recognize that or he didn't take the time to make the finer distinction.

I only wish I could say that in America I sensed peoples' desire to link to Christianity was on the wane. And I speak of some of its most appalling manifestations. There are also laudable and noble ways to link to it but these have never been all that popular in my experience.

We now have a president who has said to the press, "I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life. I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol."

Twenty years ago I would not have imagined it possible for a serving POTUS to say something like that.

Before the dark days in America we'll call "the W years" (which so many of us would prefer to forget), we had a POTUS who was discovered to be the recipient of fellatio from a White House intern. There was, of course, a shit storm of controversy, but politically speaking, he survived if not thrived after rebounding from the shit storm.

Sure, the people who hate Clinton and Obama hated them all the more, if that's possible, after the blow job scandal and the pot quote, respectively--but they both more than survived it.

But--and this is my point--imagine either Clinton or Obama looking straight into a television camera or speaking directly into a reporter's microphone and saying, "It's like this: I simply do not believe in God."

Then it would be game over.

America has had its first black president, will have its first woman president, I even suspect will have its first out gay president before America will have a president who says, "I don't believe in God. It doesn't seem to be a necessary or important dimension to living my life or being a competent leader."

[Geoffrey]

I recall the quote the owner of LIMELIGHT, NYC´s only photography gallery in the 50´s made as to her business philosophy and explanation of success.
"Give the public what they need as well as give them what they want".

I believe the same should be true of literatura in the classroom. The intent of administering classics in public education should be more than singular. Students need to be exposed to the cultural caches of Western civilization, they need to be stimulated in classroom discussion on important issues, and they need to have a love of Reading instilled.

I suspect that the latter is often missing in the syllabus of planned Reading. To read PARADISE LOST, the LIGHT IN THE FOREST, CATCHER IN THE RYE, will leave many students with a bitter taste for classical Reading. The Reading lists need diversification. Teachers must query their students with questionnaires as to their Reading tastes and this must be taken into account.

Don´t misunderstand me. I am not suggesting their responses rule the syllabus, but that it only be taken into consideration for some minor changes in the Reading lists. What we think, as teachers, what they should study might turn them off completely to Reading and that is a real shame.

[Mark]

Geoffrey wrote: ""Give the public what they need as well as give them what they want."

Funny thing about the roots of today's highly venerated classics. I'm not sure about this and I feel like my buddy Petergiaquinta will be able to confirm, but when Shakespeare was writing his plays and they were being performed, weren't they loved by the rowdy people attending the theater as much for their fart jokes and blood and guts as they were for their intricacies of character?

[Paul Martin]

Mark wrote: That the allusions are still being made and it's just that people are more inclined to not attribute them as such or be ignorant that they are allusions at all was my point. If it was also Chad's point

No, I don't think it was, and neither was it mine. Anyway, I'll stop talking for him.

What I meant was that as the role of religion is diminishing, fewer allusions to the bible are being made (just a guess, of course) by authors, and therefore biblical knowledge among readers will be less important.

[Mark]

Paul Martin wrote: " ... as the role of religion is diminishing..."

Right. And my point, which I realize you've gotten by now, is that here in America I can't quite say the role of religion is diminishing. If so, it certainly is kicking some ass on the way out.

Although I suspect a lot of the holy rollers in this country couldn't spot an allusion to Christian scripture any better than I could.

Did I see you put Knut Hamsun on your "to read" list?

[Kallie]

Mark wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: ""Give the public what they need as well as give them what they want."

Funny thing about the roots of today's highly venerated classics. I'm not sure about this and I feel like my ..."

There are probably still a lot of people who like fart jokes and blood and guts, but was Shakespeare competing with the equivalents of consumerism and Hollywood?

[Petergiaquinta]

Well, Milton wasn't all that good at working the fart joke or the double entendre, but holy cow Shakespeare is durrrrty (yeah, I stole that word from Karen, the New York Karen of monsterporn and kiddie books who's prolly my all-time favorite reviewer at GoodReads). Shakespeare is so dirty that if we actually taught the dirty bits he'd probably be uninvited from that list of venerated classics. Since hardly anybody gets the dirty humor anymore, that part of his writing often gets downplayed, but Shakespeare worked it for both ends of the spectrum of his audience, and it still works at both ends of the spectrum for us, too. We don't have to pick apart the language and venerate Shakespeare in the classroom as some sort of demi-god if that's not the group we've got to work with in class. The love story, the violence, the revenge, the dirty jokes...they can be enjoyed for what they are as much as anything else about Shakespeare.

Eric Partridge's Shakespeare's Bawdy is a good starting point for getting a handle on the naughty bits; more recently Filthy Shakespeare by Kiernan was published (appendices in the back of that book list over a thousand puns/synonyms for the genitalia and sex acts), and another book I have not read in its entirety is Rubinstein's Dictionary of Shakespeare's Sexual Puns and Their Significance, but it's better than Kiernan, I'd say.

[Mark]

Kallie wrote: " ... was Shakespeare competing with the equivalents of consumerism and Hollywood? "

I'll defer to others who have a better sense of the history. This was the time of an emerging middle class of sorts: merchants, craftsmen, etc. I'm not sure what you're driving at with your question, though.

[Petergiaquinta]

Perhaps I exaggerate with "over a thousand"...but there are hundreds!!! (Perhaps my favorite is "hang my bugle in an invisible baldrick" or "change the cod's head for the salmon tail.") Shakespeare...he's a funny guy!

[Kallie]

Mark wrote: "Kallie wrote: "I'm not sure what you're driving at with your question, though. " I think consumerism and Hollywood productions have (for a lot of people) replaced active imagining, and the patience for watching/reading complex dramas in which character development plays an important part. This (for me) relates back to the devalued fiction discussion.

[Mark]

Kallie wrote: "I think consumerism and Hollywood productions have (for a lot of people) replaced active imagining ..."

I think a lot of people, arguably the majority of people--regardless of the time period--have always lacked active imagination and an appetite for complex dramas. It may be cynical. There's a section early on in one of P.D. Ouspensky's books (one of his books where he was introducing the ideas of Gurdjieff) where he and the rascal sage Gurdjieff are discussing enlightenment and the prospects of enlightening more of mankind. And much to Ouspensky's initial dismay, Gurdjieff explains that every resource human beings can take advantage of--food, building materials, fuel to create energy--are ultimately finite.

"What is it that makes you think it should be any different with intelligence?" Gurdjieff asks Ouspensky. That's from memory, so I'm sure I've done justice to the directional gist of it, but may not have painted the whole picture.

Back in the days before digital media, the internet, hyper consumerist culture, television, etc. it's not like the masses went around reading Aristotle and debating free will versus determinism with one another. As recently as the 1800s, two or three boys behind the barn torturing a cat would have been seen as those ill behaved kids up to mischief again. That's just one example that things were not so rosy back in the good old days when fiction was, in theory, more valued. A village always had its idiots. I don't know if we have more of them now or if it's just that the village is bigger.

[Pam]

Hated "The Stranger." Boring. The first "Twilight" movie was so stupid that I never read the book. Loved "Great Gatsby" and "Catcher in the Rye." Really liked "Da Vinci Code," very exciting and interesting concept. I didn't make it past page 1 of "Ulysses." I want to read "Moby Dick" and "Atlas Shrugged," but let's be realistic. I liked the "Moby" movie with Gregory Peck and "The Fountainhead" with Patricia Neal. Enough of a taste, most likely. "Waiting for Godot" -- I read a few reviews of the play and that's probably going to be enough.

[Mark]

Pam wrote: "but let's be realistic."

I shall try, Pam. I shall try.

[Daniel]

Mark wrote: "Back in the days before digital media, the internet, hyper consumerist culture, television, etc. it's not like the masses went around reading Aristotle and debating free will versus determinism with one another."

Yeah, but they sort of knew the value those ideas held, even if they didn't grasp it themselves. Being a scholar or a "learned man" (as nineteenth-century English novels put it) was a respected position. I feel as if now WE are seen as the village idiots, trying to uphold the value of something most people see not only as cryptic, but worthless.

[Monty J]

Mark wrote: "...here in America I can't quite say the role of religion is diminishing. If so, it certainly is kicking some ass on the way out."

I maybe imagining things, but I get a sense that, at least here in the Bay Area, traditional religion is undergoing a slow transition away from ancient dogma toward more liberalized, broader concepts encompassing secular spirituality. The denominations that embrace this change will grow, while the traditionalists will wither away.

The time is ripe for modernizing traditional religion. Creationists have made such fools of themselves, that no one even listens to them out here. In Wichita, Kansas, well, it's going to take a bit more time.

[Mark]

Daniel wrote: "they sort of knew the value those ideas held ..."

Debatable.

And I really don't know enough historic details to say for sure one way or the other, to convincingly enter the debate in a way that with which I'd be comfortable.

I think it might have been true in the renaissance and the following age of reason that there was less specialization of knowledge. If you knew your Aristotle, you probably knew your Newton, too.

I just think there's a tendency to see the grass on the halcyon days side of the fence as so much greener than that of today's dying culture. Does that attitude come from a rigorous historical comparison or is it an extension of the "nostalgia for an age that never existed" phenomenon?

http://youtu.be/kODOHodMqck

[Mark]

Monty J wrote: "The denominations that embrace this change will grow, while the traditionalists will wither away ..."

Of course it will. After all, there's precedent for that in America's history. Consider how as we headed toward the middle of the 19th century, the institution of slavery gradually faded away as people began to see that the color of a person's skin made absolutely no difference ... oh, wait. Uhm, that's right. There was that pesky War of Northern Aggression.

I'm playing devil's advocate, clearly. But, here's something that was in The Raw Story at the end of last week:

Speaking at the Pastor for Life Luncheon, which was sponsored by Pro-Life Mississippi, Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court declared that the First Amendment only applies to Christians because “Buddha didn’t create us, Mohammed didn’t create us, it was the God of the Holy Scriptures” who created us.

“They didn’t bring the Koran over on the pilgrim ship,” he remarked January 17 at the event in Jackson, Mississippi. “Let’s get real, let’s go back and learn our history. Let’s stop playing games.”

So Kansas and Alabama (and Mississippi) and don't even get me started about Texas. Have you listened to some of the let's-go-back-to-the-stone-age idiocy that some members of the United States House of Representatives spew on a regular basis lately?

I'm just not as sanguine about it as you seem to be, Monty.

[Kallie]

Mark wrote: "I think a lot of people, arguably the majority of people--regardless of the t..."

But Mark, Shakespeare (I believe) was popular with all classes of people, educated or not, whether kind or cat-tormenting. I doubt that in this age of action movies and reality TV a contemporary writer of comparable skill would be so popular; I blame a gradual degradation of popular taste and attention due to the devaluation, in education, of literature (just slapping that horse one last time).

[Mark]

Kallie wrote: "Mark wrote: "I blame a gradual degradation of popular taste and attention due to the devaluation, in education, of literature (just slapping that horse one last time)..."

Quite possibly you're right ... I mean, I'm not saying that there isn't some merit to what you're saying, believe me. I just like to consider explanations--or at least factors--that are outside the codified playbook of these sort of polemics.

Shakespeare's England was a geographically smaller area than present day America. I think the argument can be made that the culture of that time and place--although certainly class stratified--was a lot less fragmented than present day America.

And keep in mind that scholars and gentlemen as well as cat torturers alike who enjoyed Shakespeare, were enjoying actors presenting his plays on a stage, not reading them (some were or would eventually, but was it the same egalitarian cross section we're imagining?)

Shakespeare died in 1616. And the so called Gutenberg revolution made a quantum leap from 1500 to 1600 (from Wiki By 1500, the printing presses in operation throughout Western Europe had already produced more than twenty million copies.[9] In the following century, their output rose tenfold to an estimated 150 to 200 million copies.[9]), so maybe I'm wrong about it being the plays more than the books that crossed over class and other divisions and brought somewhat dissimilar societal strata (stratum?) together.

But I do think that there was more binding commonality of culture in the England of the 1600s than there is in the America of the early 21st century.

[Monty J]

Mark wrote: "I'm just not as sanguine about it as you seem to be..."

People who live in the Bay Area tend to forget that we're in a sort of cocoon of liberalism. I feel schizophrenic when I visit my roots in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. When I walked in the room at my 50th high school reunion somebody barked out, "Hey, there's my favorite communist!"

I know how they think because I used to be one of them. I can see with clarity both sides of many issues, and it gives me headaches.

Scientology was founded in Sothern Cal, as was Est, forerunner of Landmark Education, headquartered here in San Francisco. The Hoffman Institute' just across the bay. Mt. Madonna, an hour's drive south, is probably the premier Asthanga yoga ashram in America. Ama, the Hindu hugging guru-ess, has her center about 30 minutes down Crow Canyon Drive. (A 3 hour wait to get a hug though.) Then there was Jim Jones and Heanven's Gate.

I don't know about the rest of the country, but a lot of experimentation has been happening here. None of it would have been necessary if traditional religion had been doing a good enough job.

But with all the experimentation, something better is bound to come out of it. Hey, if we can create Daffy Duck and Mickey Mouse, anything's possible.

[Mark]

Kallie (and anyone else who possibly might care to hear me howl at the heavens like I do), I just spent a considerable time looking for this diagram (which is from Daniel C. Hallin's book The Uncensored War.

It's on my "to read" list. I learned about the book and, more to the point for now, the diagram when I heard it discussed on the NPR distributed and WNYC produced program On the Media--a great show; you can listen to podcasts for free, but contribute if you can!

Here's the diagram:

http://www.thepomoblog.com/images/sph...

This is a useful schematic when thinking of the general tone or mood of a culture. What I was trying to say in the earlier post was that the "sphere of consensus" was much bigger in Shakespeare's time than it is in America today.

In fact, although I've seemed to resist your and Monty's points about how we're all going to hell in a handbasket these days because of the trashy films and the devious editing techniques and the devaluation of literature, I do think this much is true: something about our culture today has made our sphere of consensus shrink so much that I think it's hard to distinguish between our sphere of legitimate controversy and our sphere of deviation.

FAR TOO MUCH IS CONSIDERED 'LEGITIMATE CONTROVERSY.' AND SO IT'S HARDER FOR ANYONE TO TELL WHAT IS SQUARELY IN THE SPHERE OF DEVIATION. (sorry, getting carried away here).

In other words, this jack-off ape that is a judge on the Alabama Supreme Court, for cryin' outloud actually made a public statement that God did not create Buddhists or Muslims, he only created Christians. Ergo, the Constitution only applies to Christians. To me, that kind of talk is smack dab in the craziest part of the sphere of deviation.

But somewhere there's a 24 hour cable news channel stoking the fires of mindless rather than legitimate controversy and further atrophying our culture's sphere of consensus (all for the sake of making MONEY) that's saying, "well, now, this is the other side of the story, let's present both sides of the story, after all!"

Do you see what I mean?

[Kallie]

Mark wrote: "something about our culture today has made our sphere of consensus shrink so much that I think it's hard to distinguish between our sphere of legitimate controversy and our sphere of deviation. ..."
Oh, that. And you've reminded me that Gurdjieff and Ouspensky can, strange to say, console. Some of the outfits Monty mentions (talking to the people involved, that is) had the opposite effect.

[Chad]

Paul Martin wrote: "Mark wrote: That the allusions are still being made and it's just that people are more inclined to not attribute them as such or be ignorant that they are allusions at all was my point. If it was a..."

That was generally my point. While it is cool to know, for example, that the phrase "There is nothing new under the sun" is a Biblical quote, gaining that bit of knowledge by actually reading the Bible suffers from a lot of work for little gain. Instead, you could read a book like Begat: The King James Bible and the English Language and study a list of nearly every Biblical phrase that has become a modern English idiom, with explanation - and still have over a thousand pages to spare.

[Anne Hawn]

I've been catching up posts from about 3 pages, so I may sound scattered.

First thing, I am a devout Christian and the Bible speaks to me as a loving word from God. I've been reading post after post where Christians are all Bible thumping Neanderthals with lice for brains. I'm not offended, I just want you all to know that there are a whole lot of people out there who are equally intelligent as this group and have come to a different conclusion in the question of theology. After all, who created the universe? Please don't respond to this and get us more off track. I'm just responding to the thread.

[Anne Hawn]

Cosmic wrote: "I know that I write a wall of text, out of insecurity, just because (although you cannot see it, I know it) that there is no diploma hanging on the wall with my name on it, admitting that the great wizard has stuff my head full."

This statement has gotten me thinking. Cosmic appears to me to write better than a whole lot of college graduates. I am therefore going to assume that she has gotten all her information from what she has read.

Here in Virginia a person can read for the law. You don't have to have gone to law school in order to become a lawyer. I am suggesting that a person could "read" for a college diploma, so, which books would you include for a well rounded liberal arts degree?

My selections would be (totally out of order) Plato's Republic , The way of all Flesh, David Copperfield, Great Expectations, Hamlet, Macbeth, On Liberty , 1984 , Brave New World , Tom Jones , Vanity Fair , Edith Hamilton's Mythology , Julius Caesar Les Miserables .

There are lots more, but I have to get to bed. Please respond with your candidates for the list.

[Paul Martin]

Mark wrote: Right. And my point, which I realize you've gotten by now, is that here in America I can't quite say the role of religion is diminishing.

Ah, yes. Of course, if you reject the idea that religion is diminishing, then the rest of the argument makes no sense. Could it still be that religion as a dominant force of life is less prevailing in the pool of potential writers today than it was 2-3 generations ago? You would know that better than me. Maybe the US is a case of its own in these questions?

Did I see you put Knut Hamsun on your "to read" list?

You did indeed. To my great embarrassment, I haven't read a single novel by the man many (maybe it would be "most", if not for his dubious politics) consider to be the Norway's greatest writer. I plan to remedy it this summer.

[Paul Martin]

Chad wrote: Instead, you could read a book like Begat: The King James Bible and the English Language

Maybe so, but that won't give you the understanding of many of the stories from the bible. In addition to that, in my experience, working with a text is not the same as reading an easy summary or watching a movie.

But that's just my opinion, anyway.

**

After all, who created the universe? Please don't respond to this and get us more off track. I'm just responding to the thread.

I don't think anyone here claims to know?

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

Anyway, I did not mean to turn this conversation into some religious debate, sorry about that.

[Mark]

Anne Hawn wrote: "First thing, I am a devout Christian and the Bible speaks to me as a loving word from God. I've been reading post after post where Christians are all Bible thumping Neanderthals with lice for brains. I'm not offended, I just want you all to know that there are a whole lot of people out there who are equally intelligent as this group and have come to a different conclusion in the question of theology."

Anne:

This is not my response to your question of who created the universe. And I, too, don't seek to open up a probably fruitless debate on theology either.

I just wanted to say I apologize for making many of the comments that painted devout Christians such as yourself with far too broad a brush.

If the Bible and the Christian faith gives you--or anyone--a moral compass, a sense of spiritual security and the best understanding of and accord with the universe, I think that's absolutely great and worthy of respect. I might even be a little envious.

When, however, the Bible and the Christian faith is used by anyone as a license to suggest that the United States Constitution does not apply to people of other faiths or people who do not follow any faith at all (as the Alabama Supreme Court Judge I mentioned earlier did), I think that's wrong. And "wrong" is just the beginning of what I'd call it.

When anyone espouses the idea that some specific interpretation of the Bible and the words of Jesus should be used to guide matters of public policy and law (such as limiting a woman's reproductive rights, prohibiting same sex marriages, ignoring solid scientific theory like evolution and climate change to give only a few examples) then, with all due respect, I think that's either stupid or evil or both.

And I believe that every bit as devoutly as you believe your Christian faith.

Sorry I wasn't more clear about the difference in my earlier posts. Again, I apologize.

[Petergiaquinta]

Chad wrote: "Instead, you could read a book like Begat: The King James Bible and the English Language and study a list of nearly every Biblical phrase that has become a modern English idiom, with explanation - and still have over a thousand pages to spare."

As a reader, especially as a good reader of great literature, I have a hard time buying that line of reasoning. See, right there that sounds a lot like the argument used by the pin-headed administrators devaluing the role of fiction/literature in the classroom. Why read this enormous fancy-pants book when you can read an informational text about it? It's not the same, and it goes against the very reason why we (okay, at least why I) read.

Without going over the same ground I recently plowed above, this is why I am reading the Quran. It's also why I am reading Ulysses, and why I need to read Don Quixote and the Russians and the Divine Comedy and the Decameron and Gravity's Rainbow and those novels I keep hearing about just waiting to be published by J.D. Salinger (and about a thousand other works as well, but those are the ones that come to mind this morning as I eat my breakfast) all before I die. But if you seriously consider yourself a reader, and a good reader, not reading the Bible is a horrendous omission. It would be like not reading the Odyssey or the works of Shakespeare. And you wouldn't need to read everything by Shakespeare, would you? Skip The Rape of Lucrece and King John or whatever you like, just in the same way you should feel free to skip all of the Minor Prophets and just about anything that Paul wrote. But being a reader and purposefully not reading one of the most important texts in the Western canon of literature seems willfully ignorant to me and a crime against good reading.

And no, reading the Bible and the Quran is not the same as reading something by L Ron Hubbard, and to equate the two seems an even more horrible crime against the concept of good reading. Go to Jail. Do not pass Go...

[Kallie]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "But being a reader and purposefully not reading one of the most important texts in the Western canon of literature seems willfully ignorant to me and a crime against good reading."

I've read many of the books on Anne's list and am now reading W&P and have read the Odyssey, Iliad, Aeneid, Njal's Saga, a good number of other 'classic' works by European, English and American writers. But as a child half brought up by folks whose reading material consisted of the Bible and Readers' Digest, I have avoided the former tome and don't see why I should feel like a reading criminal. For me it is just as essential to read contemporary Asian, Middle Eastern, African and Caribbean authors (etc.) whose cultures economic exploitation has damn near wrecked. So I may or may not get around to reading the Bible, Ulysses and Don Quixote and will still consider myself a 'good reader.'

[Mark]

Kallie wrote: " ... just as important to read contemporary Asian authors, and African and Caribbean authors... "

Ultimately, we all read what we want and who is to say there's something wrong with any individual's decision on how they spend their own time?

I think Petergiaquinta is susceptible to the kind of hyperbole that is often baked in to a passion for literature and, specifically but not exclusively, the canon of Western literature. And I don't want to speak for him. I just want to acknowledge that I can empathize with a tendency toward hyperbole, or impassioned articulations, or rhapsody ... whatever you want to call it.

I think "just as important" is the operative phrase in your post, at least for me. It's valuable to read literature from within as well as from way outside one's own culture. I'm interested in reading books like Don Quixote or the Bible because they informed parts of my culture that I might otherwise take for granted. I'm interested in reading books like Popul Vuh, Muqaddimah or Tao Te Ching both because it might put me in touch with histories and modes of thought outside my culture and at times confirm some commonalities that all human cultures share.

I think having a strong grounding in the Western Canon of literature can only help me understand those differences and commonalities from other cultures better.

[Petergiaquinta]

I'd like to think it's "rhapsody." Thanks, Mark.

And notice back a few posts ago: I most rhapsodically insisted that we all read the Mahabharata. And I'm reading the Quran, which isn't a part of my culture, but I'd suggest that reading it is not only essential to being a good reader, but also to being an informed citizen of the world.

By all means read contemporary lit from third world nations. I do, and I read graphic novels and YA and all kinds of crap. Reading the Bible might even give you a sense of why and how this "economic exploitation" has occurred. The Quran and Mahabharata have done plenty of damage to the world as well, probably just as much as the Bible; that doesn't mean we shouldn't read these sacred texts as literature.

[Kallie]

Mark wrote: "Kallie wrote: " ... just as important to read contemporary Asian authors, and African and Caribbean authors... "

Ultimately, we all read what we want and who is to say there's something wrong with..."

"contemporary" is also a key word in my post. I think Western readers need to see colonization from the perspective of those colonized; to me, that is as important as seeing cultural commonalities. Part of the reason I read is to experience someone else's point of view.

[Mark]

Kallie wrote: "'contemporary'..."

Yes, that's another mode and one I'm interested in, as well.

The works I cited were examples of literature from other cultures before the priests, scientists, soldiers and profiteers from Western civilization screwed them up (to the extent that they did, which in many cases is considerable--so I get your point). And for a more pure "otherness" outside of my culture, the untainted works are of interest to me (although having to rely on translation mitigates the "otherness" but one can only go so far in this life time).

But I feel your whole post colonial flow too and I can dig it. Plus, I know it's a focus of your academic pursuits, if I'm recalling correctly.

I'll tell you what, picking up a cue from Anne's recent post, why not take the time (if you have the time) to list a half dozen or so of the contemporary, post-colonial titles that you feel did a really good job of helping you, as you said, experience someone else's point of view? In the same way that I have a deficit in reading women authors (which I mentioned in this thread or somewhere else a couple of hundred years ago), I really need to diversify my reading diet in the direction you're talking about to.

I would be most grateful for your guidance and recommendations.

Please and thank you.

[Paul Martin]

Mark wrote: you feel did a really good job of helping you, as you said, experience someone else's point of view?

I know you didn't ask me, and I'm confident that Kallie's knowledge on these things is far superior to mine, but, Desert Flower: The Extraordinary Journey of a Desert Nomad by Waris Dirie made a lasting impression on me. It's the biography of the female author who, after a gruesome circumcision in her native Somalia, manages to flee the country and become a fashion model (yes, really) and human rights activist. She later, among other things, served as UN Special Ambassador for the Elimination of Female Genital Mutilation.

Read it as a teenager, but it completely altered my views on Somali (and particularily the women) immigrants, which we have a lot of over here.

[Mark]

Paul Martin wrote: "I know you didn't ask me..."

Thanks. Kind of goes without saying that most of my posts that ask questions like that are addressed to anyone who would like to play. Sounds like a challenging read.

A topic (female genital mutilation) that demonstrates how the West certainly doesn't hold a monopoly on horrors forced on human beings perpetuated for cultural reasons.

[Petergiaquinta]

I was waiting for Kallie (not wanting to be perceived any more than I already am as just another overbearing hegemonistic white male), but since Paul already jumped in the water, here are my two "must read" offerings from the colonial world of literature: Marquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude and Rushdie's Midnight's Children.

Yeah, and I get it, too: more male authors and vaguely white, as well...so I, too, am interested in getting more names of female authors.

Hey Philip, you out there? I keep meaning to read something by your countryman in Turkey, Orhan Pamuk? Any suggestions where to start?

[Kallie]

Yes, while washing dishes it occurred to me to post positively, as did Anne, some titles and authors: Chenua Achebe: Things Fall Apart; Linda Hogan: Solar Storms (and other titles), Edwidge Danticat: The Farming of Bones (and other titles); Paul Bowles gets the Moroccan perspective, especially in The Spider's House, and translates Moroccan writers (i.e., Mrabet); Tahar Ben Jelloun: The Sand Child, and I want to read This Blinding Absence of Light; Sonallah Ibrahim: That Smell . . . I'll post more as I think of them. I'm relatively new to post-colonial writers too -- also steeped in overbearing hegemonistic etc. for which I am not ungrateful, believe me, or why would I be reading War and Peace? -- and would love to hear other suggestions about such writers.

[Kallie]

Paul Martin wrote: "I know you didn't ask me, and I'm confident that Kallie's knowledge on these things is far superior to mine, but, Desert Flower: The Extraordinary Journey of a Desert Nomad by Waris Dirie made a lasting impression on me. "

Thanks for the recommendation. I've read about her book and want to read it.

[Mark]

Kallie wrote: "Paul Bowles gets the Moroccan perspective, especially in The Spider's House ..."

I started The Sheltering Sky and then abandoned it when something shinier caught my eye. But I mean to get back to it.

I'm surprised, though, as I always had him figured as one one of them there decadent expats who, if not exactly an aggressive imperialist, was at least living off of the fat of colonial aggression rather than getting down with the native vibe. Mrabet, I'll look into.

Many thanks for these suggestions. Ditto Paul and Petergiaquinta!