I just posted something on the "current reading" thread - so I thought I'd just write something else about some of the best books I've read in the past.
When I was in my final 2 years of school (the 6th form for UK people who understand the system), I was privileged enough to be able to study "1984" in my English Lit class. We studied it along with "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley, and did comparative essays on the books. I got an A! haha! (Note: in 6th form, A+ or A* is impossible, so I couldn't have done any better
)
"1984" I can honestly say is one of the only books to really really make me think and perhaps even change me a bit. After finishing it, I also read "Animal Farm", during one particularly quiet shift at work one day. That too was a truly magnificent story. "1984" deals with so many themes that really interest me, like concepts of Political regimes, propaganda, the destruction of the English Language, and then there's all the allusions to communism and fascism. As a politics undergraduate these things of course really interest me. The book offers so much for discussion, so many dark and disturbing possibilities, particularly when you can show that the world already posseses similar features to the book. It is also the only book I've ever read which made me jump (in shock). When the lovers are together in the room, and the voice comes from behind the mirror (oh christ, was it a mirror or a picture?), that actually did make me jump. Amazing ey?
Here's another great one: "Birdsong" by Sebastian Faulks, a story centred around the First World War, but also with parts set in the 1970s. A graphic and harrowing story of love and war, every page a masterpiece.
I've come to find that so many books that seem to be "universally" considered masterful, are actually complete tosh! "The Hitch-Hiker's guide to the Galaxy" is NOT funny, and it's NOT interesting, in my opinion at least. What is it that gives them such a name with people who haven't even read them for themselves? Just like Shakespeare. As an English scholar I shouldn't bash the work of this great man of letters, but quite a few of his plays ARE pants. I think it's important to remember that there has never been anyone with a perfect record - every great "artist" has done at least ONE rubbish piece of something.
I wonder if anyone else agrees with me?
When I was in my final 2 years of school (the 6th form for UK people who understand the system), I was privileged enough to be able to study "1984" in my English Lit class. We studied it along with "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley, and did comparative essays on the books. I got an A! haha! (Note: in 6th form, A+ or A* is impossible, so I couldn't have done any better
)"1984" I can honestly say is one of the only books to really really make me think and perhaps even change me a bit. After finishing it, I also read "Animal Farm", during one particularly quiet shift at work one day. That too was a truly magnificent story. "1984" deals with so many themes that really interest me, like concepts of Political regimes, propaganda, the destruction of the English Language, and then there's all the allusions to communism and fascism. As a politics undergraduate these things of course really interest me. The book offers so much for discussion, so many dark and disturbing possibilities, particularly when you can show that the world already posseses similar features to the book. It is also the only book I've ever read which made me jump (in shock). When the lovers are together in the room, and the voice comes from behind the mirror (oh christ, was it a mirror or a picture?), that actually did make me jump. Amazing ey?
Here's another great one: "Birdsong" by Sebastian Faulks, a story centred around the First World War, but also with parts set in the 1970s. A graphic and harrowing story of love and war, every page a masterpiece.
I've come to find that so many books that seem to be "universally" considered masterful, are actually complete tosh! "The Hitch-Hiker's guide to the Galaxy" is NOT funny, and it's NOT interesting, in my opinion at least. What is it that gives them such a name with people who haven't even read them for themselves? Just like Shakespeare. As an English scholar I shouldn't bash the work of this great man of letters, but quite a few of his plays ARE pants. I think it's important to remember that there has never been anyone with a perfect record - every great "artist" has done at least ONE rubbish piece of something.
I wonder if anyone else agrees with me?
