|
|
Not sure how I missed this but, fortunately, I came across a small sign mentioning it while roaming the local B&N Sunday evening. Seems that in celebration of its sesquicentennial (150 years) last year, faculty and staff at local Augustana College came up with a list of 150 books they recommend.
Although the list may in part reflect the fact Augie is an ELCA school, it is unquestionably diverse and eclectic. That makes me wonder even more about the fact I am wholly unfamiliar with the top five books and that I’ve read only 20-25 books on the entire list. As the page notes, though, “This is not a list of the ‘best’ 150 books or the ‘most important’ 150 books, but rather a fascinating snapshot of this group of people in the year 2010 and the books they have loved and want others to also read and enjoy.”
I’m not sure how the actual rank was determined and I’m not going to repeat the entire list, but here’s the top 50, with the ones I’ve read in bold.
- Illusions: Tales of a Reluctant Messiah, by Richard Bach
- The Snow Tree, by Caroline Repchuck
- A Very Easy Death, by Simone de Beauvoir
- Black Child, by Camara Laye
- If It Die, by André Gide
- Remembrance of Things Past, by Marcel Proust
- The Fellowship of the Ring, by J.R.R. Tolkien
- The Two Towers, by J.R.R. Tolkien
- The Return of the King, by J.R.R. Tolkien
- The Bible
- The Last Lecture, by Randy Pausch
- Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, by Jonathan Safron Foer
- Lolita, by Vladimir Nabokov
- Straight Man, by Richard Russo
- Last Moon Dancing, by Monique Schmidt
- Saint Maybe, by Anne Tyler
- Jane Eyre, by Charlotte Bronte
- Practical Gods, by Carl Dennis
- Ender’s Game, by Orson Scott Card
- Peace Like a River, by Leif Enger
- The Next Place, by Warren Hanson
- Good-Night Moon, by Margaret Wise Brown
- Pillars of the Earth, by Ken Follett
- The Giver, by Lois Lowry
- The Giving Tree, by Shel Silverstein
- Catch-22, by Joseph Heller
- Up the Down Staircase, by Bel Kaufman
- QB VII, by Leon Uris
- Nicholas & Alexandra, by Robert K. Massie
- The Shack, by William P. Young
- My Sister’s Keeper, by Jodi Picoult
- The Red Tent, by Anita Diamant
- Dear & Glorious Physician, by Taylor Caldwell
- The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama
- My Name is Asher Lev, by Chaim Potok
- Tarzan of the Apes, by Edgar Rice Burroughs
- London, by Edward Rutherford
- Possessing the Secret of Joy, by Alice Walker
- A Time to Kill, by John Grisham
- The Thorn Birds, by Colleen McCullough
- Love You Forever, by Robert Munsch
- Wizard of Oz series, by L. Frank Baum
- The Worldly Philosophers, by Robert Heilbroner
- Cutting for Stone, by Abraham Verghese
- Three Cups of Tea, by Greg Mortenson
- Stones Into Schools, by Greg Mortenson
- The Things They Carried, by Tim O’Brien
- The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald
- The Magus, by John Fowle
- The Chronicles of Narnia (series), by C. S. Lewis
…there is no passion more rewarding that reading itself … it remains the best way to dream and to feel the sheer carnal joy of being fully and openly alive.
Pat Conroy, My Reading Life
Being highly ambivalent this week, an abbreviated edition this weekend.
Interesting Reading in the Interweb Tubes
Bookish Linkage
Nonbookish Linkage
Some live in a state of passionate indecision.
Mason Cooley, City Aphorisms, Twelfth Selection
There’s been quite a bit in the book blogosphere last month about statistics showing a low percentage of women being published in major literary magazines and books by women being reviewed less frequently than men. I have no reason to doubt or dispute the statistics but at the same time wonder how much of this is a conscious decision by editors.
I know nothing of how the publishing or magazine industry works and that is really the focus of the analysis and discussion. Thus, I can’t tell if the reported disparity reflects the demand of the market or if publishers are telling the reading public what the market is. Being on the receiving end, I can only look to my own reading habits. While I am convinced that, whether due to ignorance, fairness or serendipity, gender doesn’t really show up my reading radar, my own experience may reflect an underlying imbalance.
As for longer literary works in magazines, I pay little, if any, attention to the author’s sex. The only time I really look for information on the author of a book review is if I am curious about their background or expertise in the subject matter, which occasionally occurs when reading a review of a book dealing with a specialty topic or area. And when it comes to books, my filter is subject, not author. While there are some new books I seek out based on the author alone, I can’t say that’s gender based. I will look for a Mary Doria Russell or Mary Roach title just as avidly as I look for that of any other author. I doubt an author’s gender ever rises to the level of even a tertiary consideration.
But what do my own “statistics” show? Of the books I’ve read this year, one quarter were written or edited by women. Likewise, of the books I read last year, 21 percent were written or edited by women. That, however, drops to 17 percent in 2009. When it comes to books reviewed, the percentages are somewhat smaller Thirteen percent of last year’s reviews were of books by female authors and 19 percent in 2009. However, I’ve reviewed no books by women this year and only two of the 16 I currently have plans to review is written by a woman. Still, whether it is in my defense or supports the thesis that quality female authors tend to be overlooked, my favorite novel and my favorite nonfiction book last year were both written by women.
At bottom, though, perhaps my statistics are exactly what begs the question of whether they are the result of what the market wants or what the industry thinks the market wants. And even thornier issue is whether, and to what extent, gender should play a role in publishing decisions. The altruist would hope that those decisions are gender-blind and focused on the content.
There is probably no hell for authors in the next world — they suffer so much from critics and publishers in this.
Christian Nestell Bovee, Intuitions and Summaries of Thought, Volume I
Bulletin Board
- Happy, happy, joy, joy. My Frozen Four ticket arrived this week: lower level between the red line and the visitor’s blue line.
Interesting Reading in the Interweb Tubes
Blog Headline of the Week
Bookish Linkage
Nonbookish Linkage
It might be a good idea if the various countries of the world would occasionally swap history books, just to see what other people are doing with the same set of facts.
Bill Vaughn
Although it tends to be overused and misattributed, the summary of Voltaire’s thoughts on free speech — “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” — epitomizes my views of the First Amendment. More important, that view was reinforced by the U.S. Supreme Court today in a lawsuit against one of the more detestable religious organizations in the country.
Snyder v. Phelps involved a lawsuit against Westboro Baptist Church, which has gained national notoriety for picketing military funerals to communicate its belief that God hates the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality. Here, they showed up at the funeral of a Marine killed in Iraq with signs that said, among other things, “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” “America is Doomed,” “Thank God for IEDs,” “Fag Troops,” “Semper Fi Fags,” “God Hates Fags,” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” The family of the soldier won a $5 million judgment against the church for intentional infliction of emotional distress. But, by an 8-1 vote, the Supreme Court said the First Amendment precluded the award.
The Legal Satryicon puts it well: “To understand this case, you must unplug your emotional reaction to the speech that brought about the case in the first place. The fact is, nobody likes the Westboro Baptist Church. Or, more to the point, nobody worth a damn does.” Yet the fact we may not like or vehemently disagree with particular ideas on public issues or matters of public concern is one of the things the First Amendment stands guard against. And that’s where the Court came down. As offensive as the signs may have been, they were displayed in a public place and expressed the Church’s views on issues of public debate, such as the conduct of the nation and homosexuality.
Are Westboro’s statements and actions offensive? Undoubtedly. Is it an extremist church? Unquestionably. It will be easy for both the left and the right to condemn the decision in this case as they play to their political audiences. But we all need to recognize that disagreement with the content of speech on public issues doesn’t mean we can punish someone for his or her views. In fact, First Amendment principles are working here. Westboro’s tactics have been almost universally condemned, a step toward their ideas also being rejected in the marketplace of ideas, the court that really matters.
Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.
Majority opinion, Snyder v. Phelps
|
Disclaimer 
Additionally, some links on this blog go to Amazon.com. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. There is no additional cost to you. Contact me You can e-mail me at prairieprogressive at gmaildotcom.
|
