books meme

[fpb]

"The Big Read reckons that the average adult has only read 6 of the top 100 books they've printed."
1) Look at the list and bold those you have read.
2) Italicize those you intend to read.
3) Underline the books you LOVE.
4) Strike out the books you have no intention of ever reading, or were forced to read at school and hated.NB: since I do not know how to strikethrough a piece of text, I will just write NO WAY alongside.
5) Reprint this list in your own LJ


1 Pride and Prejudice - Jane Austen
2 The Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien
3 Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte
4 The Harry Potter Series - JK Rowling
5 To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee
6 The Bible
7 Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte
8 Nineteen Eighty Four - George Orwell
9 His Dark Materials - Philip Pullman NO WAY
10 Great Expectations - Charles Dickens
11 Little Women - Louisa M Alcott
12 Tess of the D'Urbervilles - Thomas Hardy
13 Catch 22 - Joseph Heller
14 Complete Works of Shakespeare
15 Rebecca - Daphne Du Maurier
16 The Hobbit - JRR Tolkien
17 Birdsong - Sebastian Faulks
18 Catcher in the Rye - JD Salinger
19 The Time Traveller's Wife - Audrey Niffenegger
20 Middlemarch - George Eliot
21 Gone With The Wind - Margaret Mitchell
22 The Great Gatsby - F Scott Fitzgerald
23 Bleak House - Charles Dickens
24 War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy
25 The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams
26 Brideshead Revisited - Evelyn Waugh
27 Crime and Punishment - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
28 Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck
29 Alice in Wonderland - Lewis Carroll
30 The Wind in the Willows - Kenneth Grahame
31 Anna Karenina - Leo Tolstoy
32 David Copperfield - Charles Dickens
33 Chronicles of Narnia - CS Lewis
34 Emma - Jane Austen
35 Persuasion - Jane Austen
36 The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe - CS Lewis
37 The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini
38 Captain Corelli's Mandolin - Louis De Bernieres NO WAY
39 Memoirs of a Geisha - Arthur Golden
40 Winnie the Pooh - AA Milne
41 Animal Farm - George Orwell
42 The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown NO WAY
43 One Hundred Years of Solitude - Gabriel Garcia Marquez
44 A Prayer for Owen Meaney - John Irving
45 The Woman in White - Wilkie Collins
46 Anne of Green Gables - LM Montgomery
47 Far From The Madding Crowd - Thomas Hardy
48 The Handmaid's Tale - Margaret Atwood NO WAY
49 Lord of the Flies - William Golding (My feelings about this one are complicated. It is a masterpiece, but so horrifying I will not read it again)
50 Atonement - Ian McEwan
51 Life of Pi - Yann Martel
52 Dune - Frank Herbert
53 Cold Comfort Farm - Stella Gibbons
54 Sense and Sensibility - Jane Austen
55 A Suitable Boy - Vikram Seth
56 The Shadow of the Wind - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
57 A Tale Of Two Cities - Charles Dickens
58 Brave New World - Aldous Huxley maybe
59 The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time - Mark Haddon
60 Love In The Time Of Cholera - Gabriel Garcia Marquez
61 Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck
62 Lolita - Vladimir Nabokov
63 The Secret History - Donna Tartt
64 The Lovely Bones - Alice Sebold
65 Count of Monte Cristo - Alexandre Dumas
66 On The Road - Jack Kerouac
67 Jude the Obscure - Thomas Hardy
68 Bridget Jones's Diary - Helen Fielding
69 Midnight's Children - Salman Rushdie
70 Moby Dick - Herman Melville
71 Oliver Twist - Charles Dickens
72 Dracula - Bram Stoker
73 The Secret Garden - Frances Hodgson Burnett
74 Notes From A Small Island - Bill Bryson
75 Ulysses - James Joyce tried once or twice
76 The Bell Jar - Sylvia Plath
77 Swallows and Amazons - Arthur Ransome
78 Germinal - Emile Zola
79 Vanity Fair - William Makepeace Thackeray
80 Possession - AS Byatt
81 A Christmas Carol - Charles Dickens
82 Cloud Atlas - David Mitchell
83 The Color Purple - Alice Walker
84 The Remains of the Day - Kazuo Ishiguro
85 Madame Bovary - Gustave Flaubert Tried once
86 A Fine Balance - Rohinton Mistry
87 Charlotte's Web - EB White
88 The Five People You Meet In Heaven - Mitch Albom
89 Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
90 The Faraway Tree Collection - Enid Blyton
91 Heart of Darkness - Joseph Conrad
92 The Little Prince - Antoine De Saint-Exupery
93 The Wasp Factory - Iain Banks
94 Watership Down - Richard Adams
95 A Confederacy of Dunces - John Kennedy Toole
96 A Town Like Alice - Nevil Shute
97 The Three Musketeers - Alexandre Dumas
98 Hamlet - William Shakespeare
99 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Roald Dahl
100 Les Miserables - Victor Hugo

Comments

[elegant-bonfire.livejournal.com]

That's interesting about the Christianity in Handmaid's Tale, as I've read in interviews that Atwood is herself quite anti-Christian. For me, I found the book just plain crappy--it was so thinly written that I finished it in a couple of hours. There was no 'world-building' as there is in good alternate reality or SF novels, stuff was just the way it was with no explanation. And the characterization was so poor that I couldn't really like or dislike any of the people in the book. I couldn't believe some people I knew had recommended it so highly.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=544
This article is actually about a musical version of the story, but it has plenty to say about the novel too.

[elegant-bonfire.livejournal.com]

Feh to that opera. It sounds horrid, and I'm disappointed that my former employer sponsored it in Minnesota.

I can't understand why so many people are enthusiastically bamboozled by this poorly written book.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Because - I would rather not say this, because a couple of people in this thread fingered it as a favourite, and I am not really looking for quarrels - but nevertheless, because it flatters their preconceptions. And, I would add, their hidden sense of guilt. To simplify a complex argument I made elsewhere, a lot of post-Protestant society carries around a sense of guilt about the little white churches and the evangelical or pietist communities of the past. Modern society is built essentially on a silent but thorough rebellion against their standards, so these thins just lurk at the back of one's subconscious, and are felt as a pull, even as a temptation. To resist that temptation, they are demonized, invested with every possible bad characteristic. I am no friend of Evangelicalism; I regard it as narrow and anti-intellectual; but the fact is that I do not suffer from this neurotic, unreconciled relationship with my own cultural past - another benefit of being Catholic. I may post more elaborately on this subject in my community, fpb_de_fide.

[elegant-bonfire.livejournal.com]

Hm, never thought of it like that. To me there are so many sects of Protestant, Fundamentalist etc. religions over here I don't see how one could paint them all with the same brush.

But my own *personal opinion* is that if you're gonna be Christian, you might as well go right to the source and be Catholic, anyway.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Mine too... well... I really will have to post about this.

Related to the subject

[elegant-bonfire.livejournal.com]

This is one of the articles I have that I thought you might find interesting. I did find this one on line:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2005/12/rapture200512
It deals mostly with the subset of people who cluster around Tim LaHaye and the 'Left Behind' books, but it's an interesting read.

No desire to be offensive, but . . .

[lametiger.livejournal.com]

Not all of us consider the Roman church the "source" of Christianity.

Re: No desire to be offensive, but . . .

[jennilee.livejournal.com]

haha, no kidding. Wow.

Re: No desire to be offensive, but . . .

[fpb.livejournal.com]

As I said to lametiger, above....
Also, I would point out that there are at least four Catholics for each Evangelical. "No kidding" seems to me to be pretty much on the other foot.

Re: No desire to be offensive, but . . .

[jennilee.livejournal.com]

I'm taking exception with the Roman church as being the source of Christianity. Not sure how the membership breakdowns come into play.

My point is that the Bible - well, the New Testament, is the source of Christianity.

Re: No desire to be offensive, but . . .

[fpb.livejournal.com]

And who handed it down? For that matter, who taught you that it had any authority at all? And even more important, who called it into being? It is a clear fact, easily read in the New Testament itself, that the writings were written to satisfy the demand or educate the membership of an already existing Church. In other words, the Church is prior to the writings and the writings cannot be considered without their social matrix. It is the teaching of the Church that makes them special; it is the fact that they are a part of that teaching. That being the case, the issue is simply this - whether there is an unbroken and unperverted historical continuity between the Church of the origins and ours, or not.

Re: No desire to be offensive, but . . .

[fpb.livejournal.com]

But anyone who does not, except for the Eastern churches which are similar to Catholicism in organization, authority and sacraments, has to play some damned funny games with history to assert the primacy of its own ecclesiology.

Re: No desire to be offensive, but . . .

[lametiger.livejournal.com]

I did not really intend to open up a whole new line of discussion underneath the one about books, but the statement by elegant_bonfire made an assumption I reject and felt I could not let stand unchallenged. I would definitely agree that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox branches of Christianity can lay claim to being the oldest hierarchical church structures, but there are millions of us who do not see such hierarchicalism as either necessary or desirable. The church (the body of believers) already existed before the churches of the Roman Empire began to structure themselves after the political framework of the empire. As for the Church giving the world the Bible, I would point out that the writings of the apostles were already in wide circulation before the church fathers and councils made their canonical lists based on what was widely accepted anyway. I take the authority for my religious belief and practice from the writings, not from those who came before me in accepting those writings and certainly not from any ecclesiastical superstructure.

Re: No desire to be offensive, but . . .

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The church (the body of believers) already existed before the churches of the Roman Empire began to structure themselves after the political framework of the empire.

I suggest a careful reading of the letters of St.Ignatius (AD100, within living memory of the disciples if not of Jesus) and of the works of St.Irenaeus (AD170). Both men had been trained by people who had known St.John the Evangelist.

As for the Church giving the world the Bible, I would point out that the writings of the apostles were already in wide circulation before the church fathers and councils made their canonical lists based on what was widely accepted anyway

Are you serious? "What was in wide circulation" among whom? And I hope that you are not going to line up behind the Elaine Pagelses and the rest of the idiots who imagine that the Gnostic Gospels and the rest of the rejected writings were a real "alternative tradition" rather than a shameless attempt to hijack the already existing traditions of the Church? Have you even paid any attention to my hint as to what caused the writings to be written? What about the fact that not only the Epistles, but even REvelation, with its seven letters, were clearly written with specific audiences in mind? What about the clear statement in John that there is a community that confirms the validity of the author's writings? What about the clear statement that Luke's writings were commissioned by a high Roman official? Do you think the Writings came down from Heaven, as the Muslims believe the Koran did? The writings were drawn forwards by an already existing Church. That is so painfully obvious that I am ashamed to have to insist on it.

Re: No desire to be offensive, but . . .

[lametiger.livejournal.com]

As for the letters being written within the context of an existing church, I come back to my distinction between the body of believers and the organizational hierarchy that went to higher and higher levels of human authority.

And absolutely NO, I don't subscribe to the Gnostic Gospels as being valid alternatives. They were rejected by all but the Gnostics themselves. The canon framers were formalizing criteria already in general use: namely an apostolic connection and wide acceptance among the churches (not a monolithic Church).

Re: No desire to be offensive, but . . .

[elegant-bonfire.livejournal.com]

Just a brief reply, since fpb has done a much better point with his historical comments--

Christ himself is, obviously the ultimate source of Christianity, as without him the religion itself would not exist. From my historical reading, which is admittedly nowhere near as extensive as fpb's, I believe Catholicism qualifies as the first Christian religion. Is it exactly the same as modern Catholicism? Of course not, no religions go unchanged for thousands of years. But it's my opinion that it is the original organized form of Christianity, and I'll have to agree to disagree with those who have different opinions.

Re: No desire to be offensive, but . . .

[fpb.livejournal.com]

To be fair, some of the issues that Protestants and Orthodox have with Roman supremacy are real. Just because I think that some of their arguments are spectacularly bad (e.g. eliskimo's incredible attempt to separate "petros" and "petra" in the Great Commission, an argument so bad that I cannot bring myself to believe that such an intellignt woman would seriously propose it), it does not mean that questions cannot be asked about, one, the precise role of St.Peter among the Apostles, and, two, the reality and significance of his Roman succession. I am firmly convinced that Rome has the best of the debate, but as a Church that lives in history, we have to be ready to accept historical debate.

Re: No desire to be offensive, but . . .

[elegant-bonfire.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree, debate is good (and I'm glad everyone's being pretty nice in this thread, since I started it. o.O) but some of the convoluted arguments I've heard IRL as to why "Catholics aren't really Christians" just drive me insane.

And I really need to do more in depth historical reading, I learned a lot of things I didn't know from reading your responses.

Re: No desire to be offensive, but . . .

[lametiger.livejournal.com]

For me, the crux is in the rhetorical question you raise and answer: "Is it exactly the same as modern Catholicism? Of course not, no religions go unchanged for thousands of years."
It is ultimately pointless to argue whether there has been an unbroken line of succession if, along the way, there has been a departure from the original intent of the founder, Jesus Christ, of whom the apostles were the undisputed direct representatives. To judge the claims of authenticity of any branch of Christendom, you have to go back to the source documents. This is IMO inescapable.

To use an admittedly imperfect analogy (because it does not involve issues of divine inspiration), in the United States the Democratic Party would claim that they go back to the Founding Fathers of the Republic, whereas the Republican Party dates back only to Abraham Lincoln. This does not keep the Republican Party from saying that they are truer to the spirit and original intent of the US Constitution. And it could also be claimed (and in fact has been) that the party of Jefferson has departed in some instances from the positions espoused by Jefferson in some of his writings.

As I said, the analogy is not perfect, but it illustrates that there is more to be considered than organizational continuity.

Re: No desire to be offensive, but . . .

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Your analogy would make more sense if the United States had been the personal foundation of God, Who also promised His own personal presence as Spirit in it from beginning to end. Much though I admire the Founders, I am afraid this is asking a bit too much.

Re: No desire to be offensive, but . . .

[elegant-bonfire.livejournal.com]

It isn't the organizational continuity I was referring to as much as the "genetic structure" if you will--all the major Christian denominations that I can think of--Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, for example, are offshoots of the Catholic religion. Mind, I'm only considering Christian religions that use the New Testament as their canon, not those who created their own canon such as the Mormons.

Go to the source

[johncwright.livejournal.com]

"But my own *personal opinion* is that if you're gonna be Christian, you might as well go right to the source and be Catholic, anyway."

This is the basic reason (there were additional reasons, of course) why, after much thought, prayer, and debate, the joined the Roman Catholic Church. What Protestants told me simply did not square up with what I knew from history of the early Church or the Julio-Claudian days of Empire.

R.C. Sproul, an writer I otherwise admire, provoked me to an unchristian laugh of scorn when he said the Church did not create the canon; that the canon created the Church. How was that supposed to have happened?

I can only imagine some scofflaw rifling the desk of a teacher and stealing her written notes, letters and reminders, and then claiming the living teacher is not the teacher, but only her written notes.

Re: Go to the source

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Sproul's statment is not only absurd, it is extremely dangerous. It amounts to treating the canon (which, as we know, varies from Church to Church - the Ethiopians admit the Book of Enoch, the Protestants cut out several Old Testament texts, etc.) as something dropped in from above, external and superior to the Church itself. IN other words, it means treating it as the Muslims treat the Koran and the Hindus the Vedas: as the untransmuted Word of God, whereof every jot and tittle is sacred. The problem with that is that we, as Christians, already do worship the Word of God - and His name is Jesus. The fact that the words and acts of Jesus come through us through the historical medium of witnesses and followers underlines the historical and indeed metaphysical continuity between Him and His Church - not, mind you, His followers as individuals, privately, but in their corporate character, as his Ekklesia or party. Of this Ekklesia the Gospel of John has much to say ("I am the true vine, and you the branches", etc.), but its importance is underlined in earlier documents including the famous commission to Peter ("You are the Rock, and upon the Rock I shall build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it") and more or less every Epistle. The Church is the continuity of Jesus in time, with the animating presence of the Holy Spirit (Who, lest we forget, is God just as much as Jesus was God), and that is why it claims that those of its acts made in persona Christi are sacred, that they are Sacraments.

Of course, the Church is full of sinners and sin. When we say that it extends Christ in time, we also mean, unfortunately, His betrayal and torture. But Christ did not cease being God when betrayed, on the Cross, or even dead; and His resurrection is proof enough of that.

Re: Go to the source

[elegant-bonfire.livejournal.com]

Oh man, this comment reminded me of a girl I knew on a horse farm who was..Pentecostal? I think, and she had a bible which had all the passages pre-highlighted in colors like pink, blue and yellow. Apparently one color was for lines that came directly from Jesus, another were lines inspired by God, one color was for 'hearsay', etc. That was quite a few years ago, so I'm not remembering all the details exactly, but after that I stuck to horse talk with her. (We were both grooms on the farm, so I saw her every day.)