Top Ten Books
- Thread starter josef k.
- Start date
-
- Tags
- alan brazil caligula cool reasons bro corpsey's terrible preoccupation do you want to hurt me? gamergate i am a dead white man myself monocle man nomad's sexy list numerous books about psychopathy stick to your guns john the msm acquires linebaugh's problematic list the telephone book is very good transyuggothian power secrets
version
Well-known member
I found an old post of Crowley's the other night about not remembering whether you like the things you 'like' which struck a chord with me,
Corpsey
bandz ahoy
I think I planned to read that twice but once was hard enough.
Isn't it awful that I've read that book and remember just about fuck all of it now?
I remember the africans dying under a tree, and the boat pointlessly shelling a coastline. The opening, of course. Not much else.
I've read The Great Gatsby probably three times and I remember almost nothing about it. WHAT'S THE POINT?!
Isn't it awful that I've read that book and remember just about fuck all of it now?
I remember the africans dying under a tree, and the boat pointlessly shelling a coastline. The opening, of course. Not much else.
I've read The Great Gatsby probably three times and I remember almost nothing about it. WHAT'S THE POINT?!
Corpsey
bandz ahoy
Santayana writes
"The sole advantage of possessing great works if literature is what they can help us to become."
I think you could question whether we really "possess" a work of literature if we only read it once, don't really know it, haven't really thought about it, etc.
Obviously books are also good for entertaining and transporting you but I have to believe there's more to it than that with certain books. Difficult pleasure books.
"The sole advantage of possessing great works if literature is what they can help us to become."
I think you could question whether we really "possess" a work of literature if we only read it once, don't really know it, haven't really thought about it, etc.
Obviously books are also good for entertaining and transporting you but I have to believe there's more to it than that with certain books. Difficult pleasure books.
version
Well-known member
Yeah. There's also Nabokov's thing about there's no reading, only rereading.
“... one cannot read a book: one can only reread it. A good reader, a major reader, an active and creative reader is a rereader. And I shall tell you why. When we read a book for the first time the very process of laboriously moving our eyes from left to right, line after line, page after page, this complicated physical work upon the book, the very process of learning in terms of space and time what the book is about, this stands between us and artistic appreciation. When we look at a painting we do no have to move our eyes in a special way even if, as in a book, the picture contains elements of depth and development. The element of time does not really enter in a first contact with a painting. In reading a book, we must have time to acquaint ourselves with it. We have no physical organ (as we have the eye in regard to a painting) that takes in the whole picture and can enjoy its details. But at a second, or third, or fourth reading we do, in a sense, behave towards a book as we do towards a painting. However, let us not confuse the physical eye, that monstrous achievement of evolution, with the mind, an even more monstrous achievement. A book, no matter what it is - a work of fiction or a work of science (the boundary line between the two is not as clear as is generally believed) - a book of fiction appeals first of all to the mind. The mind, the brain, the top of the tingling spine, is, or should be, the only instrument used upon a book.”
“... one cannot read a book: one can only reread it. A good reader, a major reader, an active and creative reader is a rereader. And I shall tell you why. When we read a book for the first time the very process of laboriously moving our eyes from left to right, line after line, page after page, this complicated physical work upon the book, the very process of learning in terms of space and time what the book is about, this stands between us and artistic appreciation. When we look at a painting we do no have to move our eyes in a special way even if, as in a book, the picture contains elements of depth and development. The element of time does not really enter in a first contact with a painting. In reading a book, we must have time to acquaint ourselves with it. We have no physical organ (as we have the eye in regard to a painting) that takes in the whole picture and can enjoy its details. But at a second, or third, or fourth reading we do, in a sense, behave towards a book as we do towards a painting. However, let us not confuse the physical eye, that monstrous achievement of evolution, with the mind, an even more monstrous achievement. A book, no matter what it is - a work of fiction or a work of science (the boundary line between the two is not as clear as is generally believed) - a book of fiction appeals first of all to the mind. The mind, the brain, the top of the tingling spine, is, or should be, the only instrument used upon a book.”
Corpsey
bandz ahoy
Don't always agree with Nabokov (who does?) but I think he's onto something there.
In my limited experience of rereading, the second time around it's bathed in the light of your understanding of the entire "picture".
Very interesting. Now wondering if there's something I should reread. (While also contemplating reading Swanns Way...)
In my limited experience of rereading, the second time around it's bathed in the light of your understanding of the entire "picture".
Very interesting. Now wondering if there's something I should reread. (While also contemplating reading Swanns Way...)
IdleRich
IdleRich
There was a conversation between Nassim Talleb and Umberto Eco about Eco's library. Something about how thoughtless people asked him how many of the he had read, whereas smarter people realised that its value lay in how many he had yet to read.
Though to me both statements contain the same information.
Though to me both statements contain the same information.
Corpsey
bandz ahoy
I'm well aware that there's a horrible dutiful complete-the-level bent to my reading (as unsuccessful as it is). At the same time finishing a great book makes you feel like rereading it, but also excited about reading something else. So who knows what's the "right" way to spend your time?
version
Well-known member
I'll go with,
Gravity's Rainbow, Pynchon
Labyrinths, Borges
The Phantom Tollbooth, Norton Juster
Mason & Dixon, Pynchon
Candide, Voltaire
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Hunter Thompson
The Rush for Second Place, William Gaddis
Naked Lunch, Burroughs
Molloy, Beckett
V, Pynchon
I'd probably include Ulysses as well, but that would take it to eleven and I haven't finished it yet anyway.
Gravity's Rainbow, Pynchon
Labyrinths, Borges
The Phantom Tollbooth, Norton Juster
Mason & Dixon, Pynchon
Candide, Voltaire
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Hunter Thompson
The Rush for Second Place, William Gaddis
Naked Lunch, Burroughs
Molloy, Beckett
V, Pynchon
I'd probably include Ulysses as well, but that would take it to eleven and I haven't finished it yet anyway.
linebaugh
Well-known member
V. eh?
version
Well-known member
I quite like it.
version
Well-known member
Well, like I say, as soon as I actually start thinking about things I like I realise I'm not that arsed. Also I haven't read very many books, so I was struggling. I think I'd be more inclined to drop Mason & Dixon atm than V., mind you. I prefer the feel of early Pynchon.
pattycakes_
Can turn naughty
You left out HoD because of the racism? There's some pretty dark shit in Fear and Loathing..
version
Well-known member
Nah, I have a copy though. I've read Metamorphosis.