Apologia
I write this in response to a comment on my last entry, which can be read here:
Protests soundly welcomed - I was, in fact, hoping that bringing the Great Books concept into discussion would stimulate some debate! A few words in response: On your first point, I completely agree with Mr. Adler about passive reading. I have, myself, been unable and unwilling to read much of anything without a pencil for several years now. (This is one of the reasons why I completely detest reading scientific articles directly from the computer screen, and why I am strongly resistant to the idea of the e-book.) As to the specific example of Njála, I consider it to be one of the first books that I really and truly read and thought about in an even vaguely critical manner. Since it was one of those very first books I approached with a critical eye/mind, I've been wanting to reread it almost ever since, though the opportunity has yet to present itself. Also, I'm pretty sure Adler would not give me points for the books I didn't finish, as in most cases, I had barely scratched the surface.
Secondly, you're probably right that it's "unfair" to rate the Bible and Shakespeare as I have. Doing this this way is also a whole lot easier than the alternative, since - especially in the case of the Old Testament - I've read it quite piecemeal, and while I know I haven't read each and every word of the 66 books of the Bible, and am sometimes not entirely sure from memory of what I've read in the original and what I've just heard retold or paraphrased so often that I think I've read it, I certainly have a substantially above-average grasp of the Old and New Testaments as wholes. However, I do doubt I'm going to be held accountable for this sin before a higher authority. Also, the Bible and Shakespeare are read very differently; there's not the sense of coherence to, say, the Bard's tragedies as there is to the four Gospels or the Pentateuch. (On a very banal level, too, there would be considerable "point inflation" if I got more points (27) for having read the whole of the New Testament than for everything else I've read from this list.)
Thirdly, I don't believe there's any way to avoid judging a book by its cover, in the metaphorical sense; I will gladly plead guilty as charged. Is it ever reasonable to want to read one book you haven't read more than another? Reading is one of life's many activities where it would be quite easy to fall victim to Zeno's Paradox. But the books I've highlighted here are ones that, in my other readings, I stumble upon references to with alarming frequency (say, the Confessions of St. Augustine or Kant's Critique of the Power or Judgment); ones that have been recommended to me by more than one discerning friend, sometimes more than two (like Chaucer's Canterbury Tales); and in some cases even ones that I've had on my shelves for months or even years, but never found the time to delve into (Cervantes' Don Quixote). In each case I have some sense of personal urgency driving me to read them before, perhaps, many of the others. (For example, I would now consider Hippolytus and Plutus to be new additions to that list.) But I consider myself neither to be limited to this list or any portion thereof, nor to any other list for that matter, in shaping a direction for my reading. (How could I? It's not as if the German or the Icelandic classics are even close to adequately represented.)
Of course any "Great Books List" is going to be leaky as a sieve; but what I admire not least about such phenomena is the sheer breadth and depth of the reading that was done in the lifetime that preceded the listmaking!! Here on LJ, I consider these list-games we play to be, in part, games - but also a way of stimulating dialogue among friends about great works of literature past and present. "sarahblack, for example, made a comment that just might spur me to pick up Love in the Time of Cholera one of these days, despite my great misgivings about it. And I chose to bring these lists, especially Adler's, to people's attention to serve as an extension and a counterweight to all of the lists that were floating around the web that consisted to mostly of required high school reading and popular fantasy series. I'm much more curious to see whether people have heard of, are interested in, or have maybe even read Spinoza, Swift, or Hegel than Philip Pullman or CS Lewis.
In fact, what I was hoping to do next - in the spirit of reading with a pencil - was to pick
a) five works that I have read
b) five works on the list of books I actively want to read, and
c) five works at random that I didn't mark.
Then I plan to post a few sentences' worth of my reflections on (a) and my reasons for being interested in (b), and go investigate (c) to broaden my horizons. Stay tuned...
Protests soundly welcomed - I was, in fact, hoping that bringing the Great Books concept into discussion would stimulate some debate! A few words in response: On your first point, I completely agree with Mr. Adler about passive reading. I have, myself, been unable and unwilling to read much of anything without a pencil for several years now. (This is one of the reasons why I completely detest reading scientific articles directly from the computer screen, and why I am strongly resistant to the idea of the e-book.) As to the specific example of Njála, I consider it to be one of the first books that I really and truly read and thought about in an even vaguely critical manner. Since it was one of those very first books I approached with a critical eye/mind, I've been wanting to reread it almost ever since, though the opportunity has yet to present itself. Also, I'm pretty sure Adler would not give me points for the books I didn't finish, as in most cases, I had barely scratched the surface.
Secondly, you're probably right that it's "unfair" to rate the Bible and Shakespeare as I have. Doing this this way is also a whole lot easier than the alternative, since - especially in the case of the Old Testament - I've read it quite piecemeal, and while I know I haven't read each and every word of the 66 books of the Bible, and am sometimes not entirely sure from memory of what I've read in the original and what I've just heard retold or paraphrased so often that I think I've read it, I certainly have a substantially above-average grasp of the Old and New Testaments as wholes. However, I do doubt I'm going to be held accountable for this sin before a higher authority. Also, the Bible and Shakespeare are read very differently; there's not the sense of coherence to, say, the Bard's tragedies as there is to the four Gospels or the Pentateuch. (On a very banal level, too, there would be considerable "point inflation" if I got more points (27) for having read the whole of the New Testament than for everything else I've read from this list.)
Thirdly, I don't believe there's any way to avoid judging a book by its cover, in the metaphorical sense; I will gladly plead guilty as charged. Is it ever reasonable to want to read one book you haven't read more than another? Reading is one of life's many activities where it would be quite easy to fall victim to Zeno's Paradox. But the books I've highlighted here are ones that, in my other readings, I stumble upon references to with alarming frequency (say, the Confessions of St. Augustine or Kant's Critique of the Power or Judgment); ones that have been recommended to me by more than one discerning friend, sometimes more than two (like Chaucer's Canterbury Tales); and in some cases even ones that I've had on my shelves for months or even years, but never found the time to delve into (Cervantes' Don Quixote). In each case I have some sense of personal urgency driving me to read them before, perhaps, many of the others. (For example, I would now consider Hippolytus and Plutus to be new additions to that list.) But I consider myself neither to be limited to this list or any portion thereof, nor to any other list for that matter, in shaping a direction for my reading. (How could I? It's not as if the German or the Icelandic classics are even close to adequately represented.)
Of course any "Great Books List" is going to be leaky as a sieve; but what I admire not least about such phenomena is the sheer breadth and depth of the reading that was done in the lifetime that preceded the listmaking!! Here on LJ, I consider these list-games we play to be, in part, games - but also a way of stimulating dialogue among friends about great works of literature past and present. "sarahblack, for example, made a comment that just might spur me to pick up Love in the Time of Cholera one of these days, despite my great misgivings about it. And I chose to bring these lists, especially Adler's, to people's attention to serve as an extension and a counterweight to all of the lists that were floating around the web that consisted to mostly of required high school reading and popular fantasy series. I'm much more curious to see whether people have heard of, are interested in, or have maybe even read Spinoza, Swift, or Hegel than Philip Pullman or CS Lewis.
In fact, what I was hoping to do next - in the spirit of reading with a pencil - was to pick
a) five works that I have read
b) five works on the list of books I actively want to read, and
c) five works at random that I didn't mark.
Then I plan to post a few sentences' worth of my reflections on (a) and my reasons for being interested in (b), and go investigate (c) to broaden my horizons. Stay tuned...