Book questionaire

[liv]

I really shouldn't be displacing like this, but I can't resist questionaires, especially about bookies. I got this rather lovely meme from rysmiel.

3 books you use most often for reference

To be honest, I mostly use the web for reference these days. Hm.

• Chambers Dictionary
  The best small dictionary on the market; I can't afford the full OED, and regardless, sometimes a small dictionary is what I'm after.
• Hertz' Chumash
  Yes, I know the translation is not ideal, (KJV with the obviously Christian bits mostly Bowdlerized) and I know that Hertz' commentary spends a lot of time polemicking against approaches to Judaism I have more sympathy with than his. But there aren't that many good translations available as parallel texts, and I know my way round the Hertz, and I happen to own a copy (it was a desperately unoriginal Bat Mitzvah present...) And it has a lot of information that is hard to find elsewhere convenientely collated into one place.
• The Penguin Dictionary of 20th Century Quotations (ed JM Cohen & MJ Cohen)
  A general, rather than a 20th century, dictionary would be more use, but again, it's a matter of what I happen to own. Actually quotations are one thing I'd rather use a book for than the web; assessing reliability online takes longer than it's usually worth.

3 books you read on "high rotation"

There's actually almost nothing I reread at all; 'high rotation' in this case is every few years, and I was hard pushed to think of three.

• JRR Tolkien: The Lord of the Rings
  Explaining why I love this book so much could take a whole post to itself. Suffice to say I find something new in it every time I reread it, ever since my dad read it aloud to me when I was 8.
• GB Edwards: The book of Ebenezer le Page
  I've already mentioned this one briefly; it will have a whole post to itself at some point.
• William Horwood: Skallagrigg
  In a way Skallagrigg tends towards the sentimental, but it's amazingly well written, and treats fairly unusual subjects. The fact that I reread it at all shows how much it means to me.

The only other one that might have gone on this list was AS Byatt's Babel Tower; I discovered it more recently than Skallagrigg, and have therefore only read it twice so far, but I suspect I shall be coming back to it more in the future.

3 books you read for comfort

Well, see above; I get a lot of comfort from rereading familiar and beautifully written books. But to choose something different as well:

• Michelle Magorian: Goodnight Mr Tom
  It's a children's book, but that doesn't prevent it from being well-written, complex, moving and highly readable. I love children's authors who avoid patronizing.
• Edmond Rostand: Cyrano de Bergerac
  I always weep buckets over this one, total self-indulgence. I can't take my own troubles seriously while crying my eyes out over some fictional star-crossed lovers. And I love the language of it; knowing large chunks of the poetry by heart incresaes the comfort value! (Yes, you can all laugh at me now, I don't mind.)
• Rudyard Kipling: Puck of Pook's Hill
  Again, hard to think of a third here. But I was brought up on Kipling and tend to return to his stuff from time to time.

3 books you really ought to read

• Alexandre Dumas: The Count of Monte Cristo
  Well, Michael gave me a copy of this for my birthday, so obviously I ought to read it. But I've been holding out for a copy in French, because I'm a snob like that.
• Primo Levi: If this is a man
  See my comments on The Periodic Table
• The Koran
  I've seen this among various people's answers to this questionnaire, so this is not an original thought. The main reason I haven't read it is not knowing how to find a translation I'm confident of; the copy I have is abridged (it was given to me by some Muslim equivalents of evangelists, yuk yuk yuk), which puts me right off.

3 books you will never read

Um, there are few books I'll never read; I'm not at all a snob about trash, and there are few books I find so bad that I can't derive some pleasure from the act of reading them. So I could only think of two.

• Marquis de Sade: The 120 days of Sodom
  Cos I can't cope with S&M. Nuff said. I probably won't read The Story of O either.
• Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Er, scraping the barrel here...

Comments

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

Protocols like Mein Kampf, I considered putting on the never read, list, but ultimately decided against on the grounds that there might come a point where it feels like a necessary value of knowing the enemy.

Shouldn't it be booooookies to indicate desirability?

[(Anonymous)]

Reference books: can't think of anything other than the OED that I use all that regularly, and since I use the online version I'm not sure that counts. I do dip into the Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms and Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable a fair bit, but to be honest everything else varies according to what I'm working on this time. I'm still a poor wee undergrad!

"High rotation" tends to vary. I'll reread a book several times over four years, say, and then put it aside for another four. The Lord of the Rings has definitely been there. Total escapism, apart from anything else (we're moving into the next category here). Patrick White's The Vivisector and Christa Wolf's Medea are probably the main ones at the mo. Just reread the latter yesterday and there is always so much more there, not to mention the thrill of reading incredible writing.

"Comfort reading": developing a tendency towards P.G. Wodehouse in moments of stress. "Three Men in a Boat" by Jerome and the (separate but related) novel "To Say Nothing of the Dog" by Connie Willis. Fantastic comedy, never stales. Although it's probably about time I put those two away for a few years, I've been reading them to death.

My "really ought to read" list can go on and on and on. If we ignore whole subjects (history, philosophy and so forth), I suppose the ones I currently feel most guilty about are the Bible (the whole thing), Ulysses by Joyce, Tristam Shandy by Sterne. (Those last two were spur of the moment, they were both the biggest, scariest books on my second-year course.) I'm currently attempting to read Rabelais so he doesn't count any more, I suppose.

Books I will never read: I'd probably shy away from Sade and co. as well. I've read The Sadeian Woman by Angela Carter which summarised and analysed quite a bit of Sade, and that was quite scary enough. (If pushed for time, read someone's precis of the author you're avoiding - something I don't do enough, no wonder I'm so bad at deadlines.) I'd go on strike about Freudian literary critics but unfortunately they're everywhere; I think I may even have to cave in and read Freud himself sooner or later.

I just lent Paul If This is a Man, by the way. He was warned that it's not exactly light reading but is still keen; perhaps he was feeling guilty, since I asked him for something light and amusing and he lent me one of the most depressing books I've read in a while, We Who Are About To... by Joanna Russ. Levi is definitely worth it, though, and it's certainly manageable (in the sense of, er, copable).

EM

P.S.

[(Anonymous)]

I am NOT about to succumb to LJ, by the way, I'm just trying to keep myself awake until it's time to toddle off to the scratch Mozart Requiem. (If I have any voice left, yesterday A and I spent the whole afternoon singing and then went to the scratch Monteverdi Vespers. Renaissance Singers are a lovely bunch, by the way; I've decided I'm still not healthy enough to do a choir this year, but hopefully A will get in, he got on with them very well.)

Hello everyone, by the way.

Rysmiel, have you read Levi? I think it's in The Drowned and the Saved (an analysis of Auschwitz, brilliant and grim reading), when he talks about how some ex-Nazis read his books and wrote to him. One particularly nasty one sent a gushing epistle in which he boasted about having, oh rats' tails, I can't remember, some Jewish text or other on his bookshelf. (Look-what-a-good-boy-am-I sort of thing.) Levi wrote back that he had Mein Kampf on his.

I'd probably read anything if I had to, but some would not be nice going. As you said, know your enemy, but I think there is also a responsibility to keep an open mind. By which I do NOT mean that I support Hitler and co., I mean that refusing to know anything about the ideas you are rejecting is the start of bigotry and/or self-righteousness.

EM

[liv]

I told you I was scraping the barrel; I really couldn't think of anything that I intend that strongly never to read. So I was being slightly facetious in picking something 'obvious' that I could be expected not to want to read.

a necessary value of knowing the enemy
The section of my enemy that is that bleeping stupid? I think I'll pass.

There's a limit to how far I'm prepared to take the principle that I shouldn't judge a book by second-hand impressions. I'm fairly confident that Protocols simply rehashes a lot of stuff that has been said many times before and since (some of which I have read, at least in extract; my choice wasn't intended as general comment to the effect that I won't read anything deliberately antisemitic). I'm prepared to take the risk of being wrong in that assessment rather than waste time reading the thing.

I may at some point read Mein Kampf, on the grounds that it may not be entirely devoid of historical interest. And I'd possibly read Pugio Fideii if I happened upon a copy. At least, those come lower on the anaethema list than Protocols!

Re: Shouldn't it be booooookies to indicate desirability?

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

I would have put it, not as bookies, but as bookses, my preciouss booksess, come to Ryssmiel..

Your "really ought to read" list does go on and on, because it includes a large chunk of the good stuff I've read in my life and some of the interesting but not so good.

And in re: de Sade, having dipped into it, I can say that the only thing more offputting than the content is the prose.

[ "Don't hurt me ! Don't hurt me !"
"I will hurt you, mwahaha. But first I shall spend twenty pages explaining why it is right and just and moral that I should hurt you."
"Can we just get on with the hurting ?" ]

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

The section of one's enemy that is not that stupid but may perhaps still be intellectually engaged and drawn out of opposition provided one is actually familiar with its axioms, maybe.

Re: P.S.

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

I've not yet read any Levi. I am aware of this as something to be corrected.

[liv]

I agree with you; there are lots of non-stupid, but irrationally bigoted people out there whom I would very much hope to be able to enter into dialogue with. And that does mean learning where they're coming from, I am very much aware of that. But really, anyone who takes Protocols seriously, anyone who doesn't realize it was discredited over a century ago, is beyond being intellectually engaged and drawn out of opposition.

You sound like Screwy: "I will single-handedly purge the militant left of antisemitism by means of reasonable argument!" I can only admire my brother from the bottom of my heart for taking this attitude.

And for such admirable idealism they killed his friend. (The full article has been pirated to this rather dodgy site; I don't know if I really ought to link to it, but anyway. Scroll down past the German to get to the article.) OK, so the case is still under investigation; maybe they only drove the poor kid to suicide. That's the kind of enemy that I don't feel able to take on. And if I did, confronting people like that, who are part of the landscape now, would be a massively higher priority than trying to argue with idiots who haven't got over Victorian racial theories.

That's not completely relevant to the original discussion of whether I 'should' read Protocols, sorry. I think the answer is that I probably have other priorities, but I shouldn't really have facetiously put it on the 'never' list.

[liv]

Hello my dear, good to see you commenting.

Shouldn't it be booooookies to indicate desirability?
No, because book doens't have an oo sound in it, despite its spelling. But infer from this that you've been reading my webpage too, which is gratifying in an embarrassingly vain way...

[liv]

I currently feel most guilty about... the Bible (the whole thing)
I'm not at all convinced it's worth the effort of reading the whole Bible. (Though admittedly I haven't, so I may not be in the best position to comment!) You possibly ought to read the whole Torah, though not all at once, and some of it you can justifiably skim. And the Gospels for the sake of being multicultural (are we including them under the heading of 'Bible' at this moment?)

Song of Songs and Ruth are worth it just as literature. Sections of some of the prophets at least. (Cue for pseudomonas to say Nach! in despising tones.) But things like Ezra, Daniel, Chronicles, Proverbs, Judges and the deservedly obscure bits of the prophets are quite missable.

[(Anonymous)]

And as we just discussed, that is exactly how you say it, my dear. Booookies. Lovingly intoned.

Re: Shouldn't it be booooookies to indicate desirability?

[liv]

bookses, my preciouss booksess, come to Ryssmiel..
Ugh, no, not Gollum, Gollum can stay away from my bookies. Can you imagine him treating text with respect?

And preferably he can stay away from my psyche, for that matter; he's been well fixed in my nightmares for the best part of two decades. I don't react well to Gollum imitations.

de Sade

[liv]

That's an absolutely hilarious parody! (I'm obviously not commenting on the accuracy, given my above comments) But brilliant.

Re: Shouldn't it be booooookies to indicate desirability?

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

To each their own. I have to admit, I used to identify with Gollum. As Papersky pointed out in a panel at Boskone, the Ring gives its wearer power according to their nature, and Gollum's nature is in hiding in dark places and knowing secrets, which is something enduringly attractive to a messed-up and incidentally photosensitive adolescent. Plus he gets all that sashimi..

The other thing about Gollum is that he is really the hero of the novel in more senses than just enabling the final eucatastrophe to take place. Consider; against the background of a world engaged in foreordained decline, where the Elves go West across the Sea and all things become less than they were, what opportunity is there for real moral choice ? Aragorn, Gandalf, and Frodo are all presented with the opportunity for moral choice with regard to Gollum, and they each prove their quality thereby. He may be a nasty little sneak but he's also the instrumentality of redemption, and I do not think he would have got his last line had Tolkien meant him to die unredeemed.

[(Anonymous)]

Interesting theory regarding redemption, are you coming from a religious viewpoint at all? I'm sure I've read this argument about another text, namely that a pretty unattractive character is ok because he causes others to show their goodness, but I can't remember where. I was never that convinced. Mind you, I never took the trouble to look at Gollum sympathetically, I just accepted the "isn't he nasty" presentation without going into much depth. I'll have to pay attention on the next reread. I don't think I'd ever find him personally appealing, but then I don't tend to go for that particular type of subversiveness.

[(Anonymous)]

Ach. Sorry. yes, it was me again.

EM

Those are some interesting choices.

[ajollypyruvate]

My mother bought me a boxed set edition of The Lord of The Rings for my 9th birthday and I've read it every year since. I've been having some interesting discussions with a friend of mine about the ways in which the movies are differing from the book. Since he's an effects editor for ILM with a degree in film, the conversation has been most intriguing.

My choice of comfort books tends to vary, depending mainly on whether school is in session or not. Daniel Pinkwater is always on the list, as are George Orwell and Jack Vance. E. Nesbit, Edward Eager, and C.S. Lewis are for when I'm seriously depressed and in dire need of cheering.

Would this be a good time for me to once again pimp [u]Bridge of Birds[/u] by Barry Hughart? :)

[ajollypyruvate]

I'd say it was worth reading in its entirety just to discover that, yes, there is at least one book that can put me to sleep. Ye doggies! Of course, I was pretty young at the time but still...

Re: Shouldn't it be booooookies to indicate desirability?

[ajollypyruvate]

"developing a tendency towards P.G. Wodehouse in moments of stress."
Careful with those; they're rather like eating too many of your favourite sweets. After 5 or 6 in a row, you start feeling a bit bloated and ill and slightly irritable. I have just about every book he's written but I have to pace myself with them.

[ajollypyruvate]

This is likely not true in Scotland, but there are people in the States who believe every word of the Protocols and use it as a justification for further bigotry and violence. They often aren't just harmless whack jobs, either. Some of them run successful businesses and are actively involved in politics.

People like that are one of the reason you'll see Americans becoming quite heated when the Protocols are mentioned as evidence of the Jewish conspiracy; we know these toads are deadly serious.

[liv]

Thank you for this. I didn't know the situation in the States. And much as I would like to say that Scotland is free of racism, this is clearly not in fact the case.

I suppose the truth is that if someone's blinkered enough to be racist in the first place, then they're quite likely not to see the glaring flaws in Protocols. I think what's happened is that a couple of facetious remarks have divagated into serious discussion. rysmiel is right; there are almost certainly circumstances in which I might actually want to read Protocols or similar. So I shouldn't have put it on the never list.

[ajollypyruvate]

I haven't read it either, as such things tend to make me swear more than is right and proper.

It isn't even that there are glaring flaws, it's that the damn thing's a forgery which people insist on believing anyway, citing it almost as often as The Bell Curve. (A book I have read and which provided me with an excellent opportunity to channel my biker chick persona. My boyfriend didn't know I knew those types of words.)

Sorry for hijacking this into a serious discussion. :)

Gollum

[liv]

I used to identify with Gollum
Whereas I'm more likely to see myself as somewhat Pippin, in my internal narrative. Interesting; maybe I should make a habit of asking people to pick a character from LotR.

Consider; against the background of a world engaged in foreordained decline, where the Elves go West across the Sea and all things become less than they were, what opportunity is there for real moral choice?
That's a really, really amazing insight, actually. It really clicks with me, like the direct experience of a paradigm shift. Seeing this comment, I immediately started thinking how lots of little things fit in with that view. I could recast the whole story with this piece in place and get a totally different perspective on it. Now I'm really itching to go and reread LotR so with this thought in my mind. Wow. Thanks so much for pointing that out!

[liv]

Yes, I agree, redemption does immediately have religious assocations. I'm most strongly reminded of this:

He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
(Isaiah 53 - yes, it is that time of year.) I'm not sure I can get away with the connection (especially not given the weight of connotations of Isaiah 53, which I'm dimly aware of at best).

But anyway, I think that Gollum can still play a highly moral role in the story, without himself being appealing or attractive (either morally or physically). That observation itself perhaps has moral consequences. In my view, the narrative almost forces you to have sympathy for him; I've always thought of him as more than just 'nasty'. But that doesn't stop him being repulsive; I'm starting to feel that's part of the point.

[liv]

It is most delightful to have friends who discuss, in formal phonetic terms, whether it is possible to pronounce a made-up word with an elongated vowel. Ok, so you won the argument (but only by a sneaky underhand trick, *grumble*), but still, lots of fun!