FAVORITE BOOKS

[RonPrice]

Perhaps how much one reads is as important as what one reads, although one would not want to press this point too much. Given the fact that we all have different tastes, perhaps the essential question or comment under ”Favorite Books" is not “which books one has read” but “how much” and “when.” I offer this as a tangential remark for this part of the site.

It is impossible for me to make an accurate record or even a reasonable guesstimation of what might be called my reading record since 1957, some 50 years, from puberty to these early years of late adulthood, age 13 to 63. I have made a start at such a record, though. For the most part, my reading is in the social sciences and humanities—a vast field to say the least and too extensive to even provide a cursory list of my favorite books here.

 

[Renaissance]

Um... Ron, don't you think it's a bit odd to start a thread on favorite books, only to state that it's not possible to provide even a cursory list of yours? A thread title of 'Ron has read so much that he cannot list his favorites' would be more accurate, don't you think?

 

[Ryan]

Um... Ron, don't you think it's a bit odd to start a thread on favorite books, only to state that it's not possible to provide even a cursory list of yours? A thread title of 'Ron has read so much that he cannot list his favorites' would be more accurate, don't you think?

Or maybe, "Let's get out our tape measures and see who has the biggest library"?

Seriously Ron, does the phrase:
"perhaps the essential question or comment under ”Favorite Books" is not “which books one has read” but “how much” and “when.”
even seem slightly egotistical to you?!?

 

[PepperFritz]

...perhaps the essential question or comment under ”Favorite Books" is not “which books one has read” but “how much” and “when.”

What a bizarre statement. I would posit that in relation to the work and purpose of this forum, an "essential question" is indeed "WHICH books one has read", but most importantly HOW and WHY one has read them.

One could read vast libraries of books "by the pound" only for the purpose of impressing others and/or confirming deeply held beliefs, seizing upon those ideas and data that support one's world view, and ignoring the rest. In short, one could read book after book with a closed mind and heart, and learn absolutely nothing. However, the right book at the right time, read with a genuine thirst for objective truth and knowledge, can be a life-changing experience.

 

[PepperFritz]

I have made a start at such a record, though.

Why? What would be the purpose of compiling such time-consuming "record"?

 

[Mr. Premise]

LOL. Art Garfunkel has actually done this. Definitely reeks of self-importance, but it may just be some kind of obsessive compulsion:

http://www.artgarfunkel.com/library.html

 

[wakemenow]

hehe PepperFritz. Agreed.

Some of us read rather slowly when we get into a book that moves us because it takes time to digest what we're reading. Regular brief breaks sometimes are necessary to think over what we just took in. Sometimes I'll go back over parts or type them out on the blog to share with others as I go, giving it a little more time to sink in before moving on.

So competing on how much we read by volume would keep some of us from absorbing the material and giving it thoughtful consideration. That would defeat the purpose of reading in the first place, at least for slow ones like myself. But then again, I never did understand the need for speed-reading unless a final was just around the corner. ;)

 

[PepperFritz]

"Ron Price" posted four messages during his brief time on this forum, all of which can be found HERE. Every one of them was a manipulative attempt to draw attention to himself and his "accomplishments". When he did not get the narcissistic supply he was looking for, he moved on to better feeding grounds....

 

[RyanX]

LOL. Art Garfunkel has actually done this. Definitely reeks of self-importance, but it may just be some kind of obsessive compulsion:

http://www.artgarfunkel.com/library.html

Funny, I just came across this website today. It does seem a bit like boasting.

I took a look at his "favorites" list and was pleasantly surprised to see this at #3

_http://www.artgarfunkel.com/favorites.html

3. Oct 1968 P.D. Ouspensky In Search of the Miraculous 1949 389 pp.

It would be nice to see a little more than just a list though. A description of the book and a short piece of why he liked it would have been better.

Ryan