Books You Shouldn't Read

I guess that there would be some misunderstanding about what constitutes a book you shouldn't read. If one means by that a book without redeeming values than obviously all things pornographic fall into that category.

If one means something truly boring... than that matters by taste. For me that would be Necromancer (sp?)

If one means something that might change your life if you read it, that would be the Bible. I've read through the Bible on the plus side of 30 times and outside of the Psalms the King James Version is the worst I've read. I know that I am a much more moral and tolerant person because of it.

PS> Anyone who would threaten to kill someone for not believing the Bible has not been changed by it himself.
 
I haven't gone back through all the posts here in quite some time, but my impression is that that was not the case; however, like all such topics, it tends to branch out as people explore the different aspects of it all, so it's not surprising that the idea began to be discussed.

Nevertheless ... as you say, it never hurts to clarify your position, just in case.:) And it is a good topic for discussion....

Hi JD

Others may have suggested boycotts or bans, but not me. <innocent smilie> However, like you say, threads do tend to branch out.

I do actually remember having trouble with the title of the thread and ended up thinking that no one would think I was being overbearing with a title "Books You Should Read" (I think I've seen some) so why would "Books You Shoudn't Read" be a problem? My thinking here is that there is a difference between should and should't and must and mustn't. But there's no accounting for human nature. :)
 
J.D., ScottSF, Mosaix and Allegra:

If anyone gleaned any shred of enjoyment from my random tomfoolery that's the only thing that matters in my book! I thank you all for your kind words. And as usual, J.D. you hit the nail on the head regarding the interdependentness between freedom and responsibility. America is now passing through another era where the nature of both are being undermined. In my opinion, it's a bad time to be alive and be American.
 
J.D., ScottSF, Mosaix and Allegra:

If anyone gleaned any shred of enjoyment from my random tomfoolery that's the only thing that matters in my book! I thank you all for your kind words. And as usual, J.D. you hit the nail on the head regarding the interdependentness between freedom and responsibility. America is now passing through another era where the nature of both are being undermined. In my opinion, it's a bad time to be alive and be American.

On the positive side, this forum is on a medium that didn't exist a decade or so ago. Information is flowing at a much freer rate than ever before. Your opinion, my opinion, and every other bit of information is being sent through phonelines, cables and wirelessly everywhere in the world. Best example I heard was about the movie Borat. The first thing I heard about it was the complaints by people from Kazakhstan. Ten years ago that country may not have even heard of the movie. (I don't want to get into the movie itself because I've not seen it and I've only read bits and pieces of the controversy.) The "Third World", at least from an information standpoint is getting smaller every day. I suspect the "Net" exists in an underground form in even the most repressed places.
 
Last edited:
"... a bad time to be alive and be an American." Curt.

You would prefer to be dead?
 
"... a bad time to be alive and be an American." Curt.

You would prefer to be dead?

No. Would you?

I am deeply aggreived at the path our country has taken in both its domestic and foreign policy, which is to say, it has shifted ever closer to facism. But who's to bear the responsibility for this?

Held up for your scrutiny is a cross-section analysis of American society. There appears to be - to a greater or lesser degree - 3 distinct types of contemporary American political thought and character. The first type warmly and openly embraces this movement towards facism because they have a classic authoritarian personality profile. They receive gratification from dominance hierarchies, territoriality, ritual, superstition, the abuse of power and the exploitation of others. Even if they aren't high in the pecking order, they identify with the repressive, the brutal, the greedy and the rapacious; legitimitizing and rationalizing these agendas with the trappings of religion. And because these unenlightened tendencies are unfortunately our evolutionary baggage; ancient legacies hard-wired genetically into our R-complex they are a common thread in our shared humanity. It is a commonality that bestows unity and comraderie and a shared purpose. Accordingly, they are better organized and a strong political voice in America because of it.

The second is indifferent, impassive, indolent, apathetic and negative by consequence of their ineffectuality. They whine, bitch and moan nonetheless about the current state of affairs . . . . even though they live in a society where they can peacefully influence the political process in a constructive fashion. They do not vote or participate in their society to any effective degree, but expect, in some childish wish-fullfilment fantasy, that it will self-correct magically without effort or strife. And when this doesn't happen they throw a little hissy fit, demonstrating contempt for their society through their personal mien and then proceed to bury themselves deeper into the protective bubble of TV, video games and the internet. They are the majority.

And then we have those who have an active, deep and abiding love for the traditions of American democracy. They understand what's at stake and fight to preserve our constitutional birthrights. In return for demonstrating the higher virtues of good critical thinking, rationalism, humanitarianism and selflessness they are given hypocritical lip service by the second group all the while being shown open contempt by the first. They are the minority and their voice is often ignored.

This is a profile of my fellow countrymen and society in the early years of the 21st century. In spite of all our great virtues (and we have many) and, by extension, through the actions of our elected officials we have shown our hand to the world. We have allowed our dark animus to prevail and corrupt our own underlying principles in the name of corporate greed, ethnocentrism, national vanity, bloodlust and laziness.

I defy anyone who cares a wit about America and traditional American values not to feel deep humiliation at this.
 
Curt, I strongly tend to agree, I'm afraid. It has become increasingly this way the last few decades, after a brief balancing act; but we shouldn't be too surprised, given the history of the twentieth century in America as a whole. We just seem to be repeating patterns again and again -- maybe not the specific details, but the broader patterns we seem to replay with not quite the rapidity of an old 78rpm vinyl disc. More than anything else, it's that aspect that's discouraging to me: that we are repeating these things, and so few seem to notice.

However, while this branches from the discussion of books one shouldn't read, it is taking it further off-topic. So I'll leave this part of the discussion at that.
 
No. Would you?

I am deeply aggreived at the path our country has taken in both its domestic and foreign policy, which is to say, it has shifted ever closer to facism. But who's to bear the responsibility for this?

Held up for your scrutiny is a cross-section analysis of American society. There appears to be - to a greater or lesser degree - 3 distinct types of contemporary American political thought and character. The first type warmly and openly embraces this movement towards facism because they have a classic authoritarian personality profile. They receive gratification from dominance hierarchies, territoriality, ritual, superstition, the abuse of power and the exploitation of others. Even if they aren't high in the pecking order, they identify with the repressive, the brutal, the greedy and the rapacious; legitimitizing and rationalizing these agendas with the trappings of religion. And because these unenlightened tendencies are unfortunately our evolutionary baggage; ancient legacies hard-wired genetically into our R-complex they are a common thread in our shared humanity. It is a commonality that bestows unity and comraderie and a shared purpose. Accordingly, they are better organized and a strong political voice in America because of it.

The second is indifferent, impassive, indolent, apathetic and negative by consequence of their ineffectuality. They whine, bitch and moan nonetheless about the current state of affairs . . . . even though they live in a society where they can peacefully influence the political process in a constructive fashion. They do not vote or participate in their society to any effective degree, but expect, in some childish wish-fullfilment fantasy, that it will self-correct magically without effort or strife. And when this doesn't happen they throw a little hissy fit, demonstrating contempt for their society through their personal mien and then proceed to bury themselves deeper into the protective bubble of TV, video games and the internet. They are the majority.

And then we have those who have an active, deep and abiding love for the traditions of American democracy. They understand what's at stake and fight to preserve our constitutional birthrights. In return for demonstrating the higher virtues of good critical thinking, rationalism, humanitarianism and selflessness they are given hypocritical lip service by the second group all the while being shown open contempt by the first. They are the minority and their voice is often ignored.

This is a profile of my fellow countrymen and society in the early years of the 21st century. In spite of all our great virtues (and we have many) and, by extension, through the actions of our elected officials we have shown our hand to the world. We have allowed our dark animus to prevail and corrupt our own underlying principles in the name of corporate greed, ethnocentrism, national vanity, bloodlust and laziness.

I defy anyone who cares a wit about America and traditional American values not to feel deep humiliation at this.

Curt,

Off topic or not, this is an excellent post.
 
Indeed. It also explained why Bush got re elected in 2004 - which has been a big puzzle to me.
 
Hi Steve12553, J.D., Mosaix and Allegra:

Thanks for your supportive comments. I did get a tad tangential, didn't I? Well, back to our regularly scheduled program!

Threads getting off-topic in this forum? What is the world coming to?:rolleyes:

I'm not sure anyone minds, actually; I just didn't want to steer things even further off the beaten path (something I'm slightly wont to do.....):p

And, as I noted above, I agree with your assessment. I also think it has something to do (among other things) with who decides what should be promoted, in newspapers, news in other media, and in our educational curriculae. So, in a very real sense, it is related.....
 
Anything by Umberto Eco. (except The Name of the Rose). He's just trying to win a literary prize. Don't encourage him.

Stephen Donaldson.. Oh, c'mon, you can't possibly like Thomas Covenant, can you? And the pretention of the writing, it doesn't make you ill? Really not? Then you're very sick. Seek medical advice.
 
Anything by Umberto Eco. (except The Name of the Rose). He's just trying to win a literary prize. Don't encourage him.

Stephen Donaldson.. Oh, c'mon, you can't possibly like Thomas Covenant, can you? And the pretention of the writing, it doesn't make you ill? Really not? Then you're very sick. Seek medical advice.

Never quite able to get into the Covenant series that much, though that was due to other things, not the writing. And, as Brian Aldiss had some at least mild praise for the books, I don't think I'd put Donaldson in the "shouldn't read" category....
 
Hmmm. We seem to have gotten somewhat off-topic ... so I'm going to run with what's been brought up...

Speaking as an (technically) agnostic (practically speaking, atheist), I've no use for religion; but I do think that the Bible, or the Koran, or any other such book can indeed be read both for insight and for pleasure. Depending, for one thing, on the translation. The King James version of the Bible, for instance, is an exquisite work of English literature. Many of the newer versions, however, are dreck. Period. They may have more "accurate" translations, but they are tiresome and about as entertaining to read as a badly-smudged list of ingredients on a cereal box. So, no, I wouldn't condemn any of the "holy books" outright ... just as guides for living one's life.

That said, I'm not too certain about the whole idea of condemning any book outright, as what some have found uplifting and inspiring, I've found pushing me close to slitting a wrist; and vice versa. It all depends on what the individual takes from a work; and so I'd be loath to put my own personal hatreds out there and possibly deprive someone who might have found something very important but for my opening my big mouth.

That is just my 2c, but on this I'm pretty much immovable.

I would agree with you on the Bible translations. I only read NIV, new international version, TEV today's english version. They're pretty good when it comes to getting a rough idea what's being said. But still, King James Version you're better off with that one. However, keep in mind though, a lot of christians and other members from some quasi-christian sects used that KJV to twist the meanings around to suit their teachings and their prejudices.
 
Ummm, yes... The Necronomicon; The King in Yellow (play, not the short story collection); the Liber Ivonis, the Unaussprechlichen Kulten; the Ponape Scriptures.....:D

Not to mention Pnakotic Manuscripts, Book of Iod, Cultes Des Goules, Book Of Eibon, and the Urantia Book. :rolleyes:
 
Never quite able to get into the Covenant series that much, though that was due to other things, not the writing. And, as Brian Aldiss had some at least mild praise for the books, I don't think I'd put Donaldson in the "shouldn't read" category....
I'm a big Covenant and Donaldson fan and also happen to like Umbert Eco's work, so there...:p
 
Stephen Donaldson.. Oh, c'mon, you can't possibly like Thomas Covenant, can you? And the pretention of the writing, it doesn't make you ill? Really not? Then you're very sick. Seek medical advice.
Oh good, another one....we seem to be a rare breed, gil!:) I just can't read a book where I dislike the "hero" so much......
 
Oh good, another one....we seem to be a rare breed, gil!:) I just can't read a book where I dislike the "hero" so much......
That could be part of the reason why I like these books, they're quite different to the other stuff I've read.
 
I came very close to buying the Covenant of Stephen Donaldson on recommendation, but got The Earthsea Quartet, which wasn't as good as I thought it was going to be.
 
and Donaldson isn't just Covenant (which I couldn't back into for the second trilogy) his Gap series, although violent, does take an interesting look at the Hero-Victim-Villan trio. I'd be fairly cautious about recommending Donaldson but I wouldn't say he deserves a don't read sticker.

Keeping in mind that even a bad book/idea can help by getting you to question what you believe in, I'd still suggest:

Who Built The Moon? by Christopher Knight and Alan Butler

Mind you I've only read a few reviews and excerpts so who knows and I have to admit if I saw it in a bargin bin curiousity would probably get the better of me :rolleyes:.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads


Back
Top