Books that changed your world
- Thread starter Jan Van Quirm
- Start date
I read Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy at quite a young age and being exposed to such brilliance gave me such a much needed lift in life. And when I picked up my first TP book in a book shop in the 80's and read the back and it said:
"A cross between Tolkien [who I also loved as a child] and Douglas Adams"
...well, the rest is history!
"A cross between Tolkien [who I also loved as a child] and Douglas Adams"
...well, the rest is history!
Don't be scared about anyone on here. And don't be scared of saying anything about anything. You can say what you like. For example, I think Lord of the Rings is really boring. I think the Narnia books are pseudo-Christo propaganda. I'm pretty sure other people here would disagree
I bet it's Richard Dawkins. 8)
I bet it's Richard Dawkins. 8)
Nope, not Richard Dawkins.
It's not a big deal, really. I just don't want to mention it because this person would use whatever money gained to support something I'm against. I can easily imagine any lurker here deciding to buy a book by this person out of spite. Not this forum specifically, but any forum.
...
Yes, it is paranoid to think this.
It's not a big deal, really. I just don't want to mention it because this person would use whatever money gained to support something I'm against. I can easily imagine any lurker here deciding to buy a book by this person out of spite. Not this forum specifically, but any forum.
...
Yes, it is paranoid to think this.
Will you tell us if someone else mentions him BB? Thing is with some authors like Carroll, or Oscar Wilde, their work should never be judged as 'wrong' just because they weren't a good fit in the standard 'morality' box at the time, or in Carroll's case, after the event. Writers do tend to be rather odd anyway I think, in some respects anyway although Pterry tends to be quite sensible in his little quirks as they are mostly practical (the fedora's pretty stylish though) Like pooh was saying about C.S. Lewis - he's a very good case in point from an adult perspective, as he was a 'typical' convert in being very aggressive at times and totally pompous and rather insensitive at others when he started to veer into morality and philosophy. From a child's perspective with the Narnia books (which I loved when I was 8 ) you don't notice the tub-thumping so much and anyway it's a Lion being knifed to death on an altar stone and then coming coming back to life and giving 2 little girls a ride on his back - how cool is that! Maybe Bin Laden read him too!
But at the time his writing was accepted and lauded reading for Catholic children as well as Protestants, and the Jesuits were mad for the Screwtape Letters too.We are quite broad-minded on here so, as pooh says, you're not gonna get jumped on - we're all mostly in agreement that censorship's a bad thing no matter how bad the book or whatever 'bad' might mean to you
But tell, don't tell - up to you. Pooh - if you promise not to go on about Dawkins I won't go on about Tolkien :twisted:
Considering the kind of books most of us on this forum gravitate towards and Beyond's strong feelings about not wanting to fiscally support the author in question, my guess would be Orson Scott Card. A fine writer, one who manages to keep his often odious politics out of his works, but the man donates a percentage of his income to a rabidly anti-gay organisation, meaning that however good his books are, it becomes distinctly uncomfortable for some people, myself absolutely amongst them, to buy them. I suppose it could be Goodkind or John C. Wright as well, but my guess is Card because of the impact Beyond mentions. Very few people who read Ender's Game at the right age can read the phrase "The enemy's gate is down!" without getting a little tingle down the spine.
To drag the thread unfashionably back on topic... The book that changed my world, or world view if you like, is Legend by David Gemmell.
Legend was a book all about coming to terms with your past and the sometimes nastier elements of it, seeing how your present is affected by it and changing your future because of it. Not through the character of Druss himself, whose own journey is very different, but through the impact he has on other characters. I've read very few books with such a strong, unwavering and, for a book with so much violence in it, gentle and forgiving morality. That made quite an impact on a badly educated, council estate waster with a quick temper and a list of regrets and bitter memories as long as his arm. Simply put, I'm a better man for having read it.
To drag the thread unfashionably back on topic... The book that changed my world, or world view if you like, is Legend by David Gemmell.
Legend was a book all about coming to terms with your past and the sometimes nastier elements of it, seeing how your present is affected by it and changing your future because of it. Not through the character of Druss himself, whose own journey is very different, but through the impact he has on other characters. I've read very few books with such a strong, unwavering and, for a book with so much violence in it, gentle and forgiving morality. That made quite an impact on a badly educated, council estate waster with a quick temper and a list of regrets and bitter memories as long as his arm. Simply put, I'm a better man for having read it.
Of course I can be judgemental. Authors aren't gods. The days of revering the written word in a book as above all else is long gone. I have read random articles on the internet that have made a mark on my life just as a good book has, but we all hit delete on articles at some stage. The same can be said about newspapers (proper newspapers). But we don't save every article like we hoard books. They end up on the bottom of the birds cage. We as a race do not have to save every written word ever written, especially in these times where access to writing is more available to everyone morseo than any other time in history.
ANd I totally agree with Beyond. She has every right to withold the identity of the author she despises. Here, if you commit a crime (any crime) you may never profit from that crime. So if you write a book about anything and mention the crime then all proceeds must go back to the government.... they don't STOP them being published... you just can't profit from them. I think that is a great law.
I used the term of pedophile as an example... there are lesser and greater crimes people and authors commit that I can judge as being something I don't want to support or condone. But just as wouldn't support a person like this IRL, I won't support a means for them making a living through recommending or buying their books.
ANd I totally agree with Beyond. She has every right to withold the identity of the author she despises. Here, if you commit a crime (any crime) you may never profit from that crime. So if you write a book about anything and mention the crime then all proceeds must go back to the government.... they don't STOP them being published... you just can't profit from them. I think that is a great law.
I used the term of pedophile as an example... there are lesser and greater crimes people and authors commit that I can judge as being something I don't want to support or condone. But just as wouldn't support a person like this IRL, I won't support a means for them making a living through recommending or buying their books.
I remember Jeffery Archer *washes slime out of mouth immediately* when he was incarcerated - if you can call it that - finding out the hard way that one can't wriggle out of writing awful things indefinitely. That (and his perjury) gave him a long overdue introduction to the real world of us lesser plebs :twisted:
Does he still write? Does any one know? Or care?
Someone (was it BaldJean or Friede?) was saying the other day about history being the victor's tale, but sometimes the reverse is true as well. Karl Marx for instance has gone through it from both sides and survived in various levels of popularity if only in academia
What's viewed as beyond the pale in some eras is acceptable in others. Nobody can read every book in existence, so everyone to some extent is self-censoring in what they select to read and what they reject. How awful if nobody had ever read The Communist Party Manifesto or Das Kapital. Communism's got a tarnished rep these days but what a concept to miss out on! That everyone could be equal! Amazing - for all the wrong practical reasons maybe, because we're all venal competitive opportunistic story-telling apes who are all, almost to a man, woman, child and third sex, extremely good at deluding ourselves on just how great we are. But he changed the world and gave the 'masses' more than opium, religion and especially TV to chew over whilst they sank back into apathy.
Would you say the same thing about Mein Kampf or The Little Red Book? Are they not great in their own way? They're both certainly important and should be read - how else to study and learn how a nation can be deluded, manipulated and coaxed into euphoria, hysteria and finally selective dementia on a glorious road to Lebensraum through genocide and the systemic debasement and destruction of knowledge through racial dynamism and endeavour (both Germans and Jews).
Or forced several generations into controlling and limiting the number of children they give birth to and penalised them heavily for not doing so, by being kept in poverty and enslavement in all but name in a totalitarian society that claimed to be equal for all...?
Where do you start saying - I won't read that? In the end it's all down to your own tastes and preference and all that I've said is complete and utter tosh, because, as much as some of those books really are important, however much they might be completely and utterly deranged and warped, I would never read them in a million years, or certainly in my allotted time, because their effects are already amongst us and I don't want to read them, even if I was attracted to them in any way whatsoever. Why not - honest reason? They'd bore the tits off me I don't need to read them.
Great as my admiration and 'affection' is for pooh's opinions, he could no more convince me that I should read Richard Dawkins than I could ask him to read the Silmarillion every night for an hour (I wouldn't wish on that on my worst enemy acutally, because I couldn't do it either! ). I'm an atheist too but I won't read a syllable of Dawkins god-busting literature from what I know of him, because I think on that subject he's an obnoxious, 'down your throat bigot', who's as bad in his way as the Rev. Ian Paisley and gives atheism a bad name... Plus reading about religion (or why there shouldn't be any) gives me a headache unless it's patently impossible, mythic or ridiculous, or all three, which actually means I could probably read most things and have in some respects. How can people get passionate about total bollocks?
Give me something unbelievable to believe in - now that's a real challenge and why I love fantasy :twisted:
finding out the hard way that one can't wriggle out of writing awful things indefinitely. That (and his perjury) gave him a long overdue introduction to the real world of us lesser plebs :twisted: Does he still write? Does any one know? Or care?
Someone (was it BaldJean or Friede?) was saying the other day about history being the victor's tale, but sometimes the reverse is true as well. Karl Marx for instance has gone through it from both sides and survived in various levels of popularity if only in academia
What's viewed as beyond the pale in some eras is acceptable in others. Nobody can read every book in existence, so everyone to some extent is self-censoring in what they select to read and what they reject. How awful if nobody had ever read The Communist Party Manifesto or Das Kapital. Communism's got a tarnished rep these days but what a concept to miss out on! That everyone could be equal! Amazing - for all the wrong practical reasons maybe, because we're all venal competitive opportunistic story-telling apes who are all, almost to a man, woman, child and third sex, extremely good at deluding ourselves on just how great we are. But he changed the world and gave the 'masses' more than opium, religion and especially TV to chew over whilst they sank back into apathy.
Would you say the same thing about Mein Kampf or The Little Red Book? Are they not great in their own way? They're both certainly important and should be read - how else to study and learn how a nation can be deluded, manipulated and coaxed into euphoria, hysteria and finally selective dementia on a glorious road to Lebensraum through genocide and the systemic debasement and destruction of knowledge through racial dynamism and endeavour (both Germans and Jews).
Or forced several generations into controlling and limiting the number of children they give birth to and penalised them heavily for not doing so, by being kept in poverty and enslavement in all but name in a totalitarian society that claimed to be equal for all...? Where do you start saying - I won't read that? In the end it's all down to your own tastes and preference and all that I've said is complete and utter tosh, because, as much as some of those books really are important, however much they might be completely and utterly deranged and warped, I would never read them in a million years, or certainly in my allotted time, because their effects are already amongst us and I don't want to read them, even if I was attracted to them in any way whatsoever. Why not - honest reason? They'd bore the tits off me
I don't need to read them.Great as my admiration and 'affection' is for pooh's opinions, he could no more convince me that I should read Richard Dawkins than I could ask him to read the Silmarillion every night for an hour (I wouldn't wish on that on my worst enemy acutally, because I couldn't do it either!
). I'm an atheist too but I won't read a syllable of Dawkins god-busting literature from what I know of him, because I think on that subject he's an obnoxious, 'down your throat bigot', who's as bad in his way as the Rev. Ian Paisley and gives atheism a bad name... Plus reading about religion (or why there shouldn't be any) gives me a headache unless it's patently impossible, mythic or ridiculous, or all three, which actually means I could probably read most things and have in some respects. How can people get passionate about total bollocks? Give me something unbelievable to believe in - now that's a real challenge and why I love fantasy :twisted:
I like Richard Dawkins but didn't like the God Delusion (I am an atheist so it wasn't that I was objectioning to its proposition). I just don't think it's arguments were coherent enough. It did have some very interesting points.
Would heartily recommend 'The Selfish Gene' though, it took me two gos to read it as I am came at it with the wrong mindset when I first tried it. I had no scientific background and just didn't get what it was saying. Very glad I tried again, evolution is indeed a wonderous thing. I knew the laymans version of what evolution was but this made me look the world in a completely different way. A true eye opener.
Knowing what I do now about the Narnia books has spoilt the magic of those books for me
As for Tolkien, loved these books but they did drag on a bit in parts...Anyone fancy a pint?
Would heartily recommend 'The Selfish Gene' though, it took me two gos to read it as I am came at it with the wrong mindset when I first tried it. I had no scientific background and just didn't get what it was saying. Very glad I tried again, evolution is indeed a wonderous thing. I knew the laymans version of what evolution was but this made me look the world in a completely different way. A true eye opener.
Knowing what I do now about the Narnia books has spoilt the magic of those books for me
As for Tolkien, loved these books but they did drag on a bit in parts...Anyone fancy a pint?
Are you aware that this is the advice the White Queen gives to Alice in "Through the Looking Glass"?
'You needn't say "exactly",' the Queen remarked. 'I can believe it without that. Now I'll give you something to believe. I'm just one hundred and one, five months and a day.'
'I ca'n't believe that!' said Alice.
'Ca'n't you?' the Queen said in a pitying tone. 'Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.'
Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said 'one ca'n't believe impossible things.'
'I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. There goes the shawl again!'
'You needn't say "exactly",' the Queen remarked. 'I can believe it without that. Now I'll give you something to believe. I'm just one hundred and one, five months and a day.'
'I ca'n't believe that!' said Alice.
'Ca'n't you?' the Queen said in a pitying tone. 'Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.'
Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said 'one ca'n't believe impossible things.'
'I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. There goes the shawl again!'
I sincerely doubt you are completely against drugs, unless you belong to some kind of sect. You are completely against coffee? Against tea? Against cocoa? Against tobacco? Against alcohol? Against any kind of medicine?
No, what you probably mean is that you are against illegal drugs. But you should keep in mind that which drugs are legal or illegal is completely arbitrary; it greatly varies from country to country.
I am not against drugs at all; they have been part of human culture for all of history, and there is in my opinion nothing wrong with using them. The problem is not USAGE, it is ABUSE. I am no smoker, yet I will smoke a cigar from time to time after a really exceptional meal (a really good one, of course). Since I am co-owner of a restaurant "really good does mean something. It happens about every three months.
I also use a certain hallucinogenic mushroom (amanita muscaria) every three months for certain rituals of my religion. And I drink alcohol and coffee in small quantities and tea in slightly larger quantities. I definitely am a drug user.
No, what you probably mean is that you are against illegal drugs. But you should keep in mind that which drugs are legal or illegal is completely arbitrary; it greatly varies from country to country.
I am not against drugs at all; they have been part of human culture for all of history, and there is in my opinion nothing wrong with using them. The problem is not USAGE, it is ABUSE. I am no smoker, yet I will smoke a cigar from time to time after a really exceptional meal (a really good one, of course). Since I am co-owner of a restaurant "really good does mean something. It happens about every three months.
I also use a certain hallucinogenic mushroom (amanita muscaria) every three months for certain rituals of my religion. And I drink alcohol and coffee in small quantities and tea in slightly larger quantities. I definitely am a drug user.
