Favourite Five Books

[marymck]

A combination of the fav films and sticky music thread + a piece on the Today programme, where authors where asked to nominate five new "classics" of literature has set me thinking.

What are your five favourite books?

I'll start the ball rolling with ...

The Wind in the Willows - Kenneth Grahame
The Green Fool - Patrick Kavanagh
The Great Gatsby - F.Scott Fitzgerald

Those popped up with no trouble whatsoever - they're the three books I return to again and again.

There's a fight going on between my brain and my heart over the other two.

[leenewham]

Emil and the Detectives (we added that especially to the childrens books we bought for the library last Christmas, every library should have a copy).
Captain Corellis Mandolin and Louise De Berniers Latin American trilogy
To Kill A Mockingbird (Brilliant move and equally brilliant book)
The Lovely Bones
Tipping Point by Malcom Gladwell (anything he's written is great though).

I'd also add a few more. A biography of John Snow and a book on El Salvador, partly because they both feature El Salvador, Sñr Romero and my wife's uncle, both of whom I admire.

[Robin Orton]

Cervantes, Don Quixote.(The most lovable character in fiction I know)
Dickens, David Copperfield.
Rose Macaulay, The Towers of Trebizond (old-fashioned, snobbish, High Church camp - irresistible!)
J.H. Newman, Apologia pro Vita Sua.(Changed my life).
Thomas Mann, Buddenbrooks (which I'm currently ploughing through!)

I read 'The Great Gatsby', Mary, but I must say it left me cold. What do you think is good about it?

Must get round to 'To Kill A Mockingbird.' My daughter read it at school, and thought it was great.

[marymck]

I read 'The Great Gatsby', Mary, but I must say it left me cold. What do you think is good about it?

Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that’s no matter — to-morrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther.... And one fine morning ——

So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

I found it utterly heartbreaking. I've seldom read a book that can touch me so deeply emotionally. That it can do so every time I re-read it is unqiue for me.

[Tim Lund]

I'm not quite sure how to approach this - I could try to be objective, and list the five books I have most frequently reread, or at least parts thereof. On that basis, the Bible and the Communist Manifesto would probably be there, and a standard collection of poetry. Or I could go for the books which I would want to have now if limited to five. Then again, I could go for the books which most impressed me when I read them, and which I feel have had a lasting impact - like Robin including Apologia Pro Vita Sua. I can't decide which is the best approach, so a mixture, but more of the last, I guess - with favourites from five different categories

• Novels - Persuasion. I often used to reread Jane Austen as a stress buster. Could have been any of hers - or something by Trollope.
• Popular Science - The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins. His first and best. And he never said that we have to be selfish because of our genes. In it he introduced the word 'meme' to the world, as a tool for thinking about how we think. Brilliant and thought provoking. Please read it to know what it really says.
• Politics / philosophy - The Open Society and its Enemies by Karl Popper.
• Business - Liar's Poker, by Michael Lewis. The exposé of Wall Street and the City from the 1980s which was meant to make people see it couldn't last. I read it, and dropped out in 1996; others stayed in for the ride.
• Hard to categorise - Letters on England, by Voltaire. This one really did change my life - it got me into reading French, and then learning to speak it and living there for a year. The letter are short, sharp, funny, and still relevant. A great example of 'What can they know of England / who only England know?' (That's Kipling - shame to miss him off as well ...)

And I've had to leave out my favourite history book(s) ...

[michael]

I'm not nearly as well read as others on this forum, so let me lower the tone a little, but I hope not too much:

1984 by George Orwell
Catch 22 by Joseph Heller
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy trilogy (in five books) by Douglas Adams
A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking
The Old Testament

I feel the need to explain the last choice - a great collection of stories and myths incorporating some of the oldest stories by humans, relatively unchanged for thousands of years. In contrast to my other choices, all of which are late 20th century.

[leenewham]

So Stephen Hawking is the only non-fiction then Michael?

[Robin Orton]

On that basis, the Bible and the Communist Manifesto would probably be there

The Old Testament

But surely the Bible and Shakespeare are already on the island? Not sure about the Communist Manifesto though.

[leenewham]

If it was Gideon's Island the bible would already be there Robin.

In ever drawer…

[michael]

So Stephen Hawking is the only non-fiction then Michael?

Let's hope so, and try to keep 1984 in the fiction section.

But surely the Bible and Shakespeare are already on the island? Not sure about the Communist Manifesto though.

Who said anything about an island?
'Five new "classics" of literature' was what we were asked for. Now I doubt the Bible really counts as 'new' but then nor does Dickens. And then Tim decided that non-fiction can be counted as literature, which I'm not sure about, but I added the Prof anyway. And I don't think there should be any expectation in this day and age that the Bible is a 'must have' for anybody, but it does have some great stories.

[Robin Orton]

Who said anything about an island?

Roy Plomley.

'Five new "classics" of literature' was what we were asked for.

Mary said that 'a piece on the Today programme, where authors where asked to nominate five new "classics" of literature' had 'set her thinking', but then invited us to say what our five favourite 'books' were - not necessarily new ones, I assumed.

And then Tim decided that non-fiction can be counted as literature, which I'm not sure about [...]

I think non-fiction can definitely be counted as literature. The Origin of Species (which I haven't read - it's on my list), Gibbon's Decline and Fall, Macaulay's History of England (which I have, and which I now wish I'd put in my top five - both totally gripping and masterpieces of English prose)? And what about poetry, or philosophy (Plato's Republic comes to mind), or biography (Boswell's Life of Johnson)?

I'm sorry Michael didn't rise to Lee's bait about whether or not the Old Testament should be classified as fiction!

[Tim Lund]

And then Tim decided that non-fiction can be counted as literature, which I'm not sure about [...]

Apologies to Mary - I didn't read the question properly. It I had, my responses would have been more literary, although still not all fiction.

I think non-fiction can definitely be counted as literature. The Origin of Species (which I haven't read - it's on my list), Gibbon's Decline and Fall, Macaulay's History of England (which I have, and which I now wish I'd put in my top five - both totally gripping and masterpieces of English prose)?

I'd never have had you down as a fan of Macaulay. I've only dipped into his History of England, sometimes to find outrageous anti-catholic prejudice. It's his Essays and Review I like - and was thinking of including on the basis that I reread them quite often. I think his hatchet job on the romantic Tory Southey is one of the most devastating bit of writing I know:

It is, indeed, most extraordinary, that a mind like Mr. Southey's, a mind richly endowed in many respects by nature, and highly cultivated by study, a mind which has exercised considerable influence on the most enlightened generation of the most enlightened people that ever existed, should be utterly destitute of the power of discerning truth from falsehood. Yet such is the fact. Government is to Mr. Southey one of the fine arts. He judges of a theory, of a public measure, of a religious or a political party, of a peace or a war, as men judge of a picture or a statue, by the effect produced on his imagination. A chain of associations is to him what a chain of reasoning is to other men; and what he calls his opinions are in fact merely his tastes.

"The Origin of Species"? I've tried, but much as I admire Darwin, I've never got far into it. I know people say it's a classic of literature, but Darwin himself would be amazed. He struggled with his writing, and I think it shows, although it has the immense strength that comes from a simple focus on setting out an argument. Darwin was a much more sympathetic person than Dawkins, but The Selfish Gene is a better read, and rather more up to date.

And what about poetry, or philosophy (Plato's Republic comes to mind), or biography (Boswell's Life of Johnson)?

I thought about biography too, but that got squeezed out, part because, like history, there wasn't a clear favourite. I was thinking of this one of Darwin, which I enjoyed, but there are some many more, that may be better.

[Robin Orton]

I agree with you, Tim, about Trollope, Macaulay's essays and The Selfish Gene.

Another modern novel that would have been on my list if I'd thought about it in time would be Naguib Mahfouz's Cairo trilogy (really a single novel in three parts.) It is a family saga which gives a really vivid and instructive picture of modern Egyptian history and culture.

[michael]

I'm sorry Michael didn't rise to Lee's bait about whether or not the Old Testament should be classified as fiction!

Of course it is fiction. Language did not develop in a tower in Babylon, and women do not turn into pillars of salt. It may be based on some true events but there are a number of aspects that are purely fictitious, have been carefully spun, or lost in translation. As a collection of myths and stories it is great, as the single basis of understanding the world, it is somewhat lacking. But the same accusation can be levelled at the Hitchhiker's Guide - although it did predict tablet computers, the world wide web, journalist-bloggers, wikipedia, and the babel-fish.
What's that?, You haven't invented the babel-fish yet? Honestly mankind, if you can't master the simple construction of genetically modified organise that includes a basic translation algorithm.... but I digress.

[Robin Orton]

I'd have thought that to be classified as 'fiction', a book would have to be presented by its author as a invented narrative, i.e that it would have not to be meant to be 'true' in any of the most common senses of the word. In other words, that 'fiction' is a literary genre. I'm not sure the Bible is fiction in that sense. Those who wrote and edited it thought it was conveying 'truth.' (They may have been wrong, of course.)

[marymck]

and women do not turn into pillars of salt.

... however hard we pray that some would.

[marymck]

The Green Fool is autobiography ... sort of.

I still can't pick my other two though. I'm thinking of Bruce Chatwin's Songlines, but haven't really settled on it. And probably a Peter Matthiessen - but not sure which one.

Hard to be without a poetry book though. But would have to go for an anthology as I couldn't pick just one poet. Possibly The Rattle Bag.

I love this debate and have got lots more books on my must read list now ... thank you.

[Rachael]

I'd have thought that to be classified as 'fiction', a book would have to be presented by its author as a invented narrative, i.e that it would have not to be meant to be 'true' in any of the most common senses of the word. In other words, that 'fiction' is a literary genre. I'm not sure the Bible is fiction in that sense. Those who wrote and edited it thought it was conveying 'truth.' (They may have been wrong, of course.)

'Fiction' is not a literary genre, just a broad and not always very useful opposite to 'non-fiction'.

There are plenty of examples of books that have been presented as non-fiction that have proved to be completely fictitious. You can't rely on what writers say to make your definitions.

I would say religious texts that are the cornerstone of a faith, such as the Bible, fall into a different category. The authors most likely believed what they were writing was true. Doesn't mean it is. The same holds true for scientific texts - with the evidence to hand, the authors present what they believe to be true. Doesn't always prove to be the case. Does that mean they are writing fiction?

I have no idea what argument I'm making here, btw, if any, so don't ask me.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Tim Lund]

'Fiction' is not a literary genre, just a broad and not always very useful opposite to 'non-fiction'.

There are plenty of examples of books that have been presented as non-fiction that have proved to be completely fictitious. You can't rely on what writers say to make your definitions.

I would say religious texts that are the cornerstone of a faith, such as the Bible, fall into a different category. The authors most likely believed what they were writing was true. Doesn't mean it is. The same holds true for scientific texts - with the evidence to hand, the authors present what they believe to be true. Doesn't always prove to be the case. Does that mean they are writing fiction?

I have no idea what argument I'm making here, btw, if any, so don't ask me.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

The books in my place are slightly out of control, and every now and then I feel I should sort them out. Earlier this year the Oxfam shop in Herne Hill got a few thousand turgid books that I realised I'd never get round to reading. I thought of eliminating the section for religious books, but it didn't seem appropriate, for example, to put the Book of English Common Prayer in any other grouping, and I wasn't going to throw that out. Actually, it might have made my top five, now I think about it ...

[Robin Orton]

'Fiction' is not a literary genre, just a broad and not always very useful opposite to 'non-fiction'.

So what's 'non-fiction'?

I was using 'fiction' in the sense of one of the definitions of the word (not the only one) in the OED: 'The species of literature which is concerned with the narration of imaginary events and the portraiture of imaginary characters; fictitious composition. Now usually, prose novels and stories collectively [...]' Obviously it can also be used in a wider sense.

There are plenty of examples of books that have been presented as non-fiction that have proved to be completely fictitious.

Proved to be completely untrue, certainly, but I'd have thought that 'fictitious' usually carries the implication of a deliberate invention or device, as in the OED definition of 'feigned to exist; existing only in imagination; imaginary, unreal.' Which would cover e.g. 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion', but not e.g a medieval book about alchemy or the four humours. And, I agree, not the Bible, which is in a quite different category, as you say.