Ask HN: What literature do you read?
I know a lot of people here are futurists and Phillip K. Dick fans, so I look forward to hearing what other literature you enjoy.
Started with: Dune, by Frank Herbert (+ 5 books in the series)
Continued to: Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card (+ 3 sequels)
Now reading: Foundation by Isaac Asimov (+ 5 books)
Other than that, been been enjoying some classic literature, Zen and Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, James Clavell, Haruki Murakami and books about Richard Feynman.
My stupidity aside, awesome author and Anathem is definitely worth a read.
I caught these books at just the right time in my life (age 13 or 14), leading my high-school fascination with Japan and rekindled interest in computing, and probably played an inordinately large role in me ending up as a programmer who lives in Tokyo, two decades later.
I like great sci fi best, but I think most of it is crap, including virtually all of the old pulp sci fi and Asimov I grew up reading (which was basically all of it), Star Wars/Trek, etc.
Other than Gibson's stuff, some of the truly spectacular sci fi I have read is the very-dense-and-not-at-all-thriller-ish Mars trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars), and the fast-paced-and-awesome Spin by Robert Charles Wilson. That led me to read all of Wilson's books, many of which are also good. Also Haldeman is an author worth reading, though not all of his books hit their mark.
Great sci fi is my favorite fiction, but IMO most of it is broken by being fundamentally implausible. Other fiction I consider great in other genres include Memoirs of a Geisha, Cold Mountain, REAMDE, The Son, The Road, the lighter but still version of that post-apocalyptic concept The Dog Stars, City of Thieves, and All the Pretty Horses and its sequels.
It's probably symptomatic of a major flaw in my character that despite also buying dozens of nonfiction works (Lincoln, On China, and so forth) over the past few years, I haven't finished any of them.
If you're into crime/mystery fiction, the recently deceased Elmore Leonard was one of the best. A few of his books have been made into movies (Get Shorty, Jackie Brown, The Big Bounce) with mixed results, but I do I highly recommend reading the books, which are numerous.
For a different sort of fiction, James Clavell's Shogun, Taipan, and Noble House are great. In fact, Noble House very well be my favorite book. It's a long (~1400 page) book about business dealings, political intrigue, and more. All set in the context of 1963 Hong Kong.
Those who like a touch of historical fiction could take a look at Conn Uggulden. One of his series, The Conqueror, which is about the rise and fall of the Mongol empire is pretty interesting. The books are a light read, and not particularly complicated, but it's entertaining and has some neat historical bits.
Even if it isn't, you should like it if you like the others
Thanks for the recommendation though.
Edit: yes they do, and that's exactly what they're called, and there's already one for Hacker News: http://www.goodreads.com/group/show/94469-hackernews
Maybe the mods of that group could have a monthly book club or so?
Various practical books such as Secrets of Power Negotiation by Roger Dawson if that sort of thing will help you.
I haven't finished it, but I find it quite interesting. It's the story of a housekeeper and a professor of mathematics who can remember new memories only for 80 minutes.
Here is a link to the relevant wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Housekeeper_and_the_Profess...
I was recently coaxed into reading the 'Kingkiller chronicles' by Patrick Rothfuss, I was sceptical thinking it would be something like Harry Potter (not my cup of tea) but I ended up really liking it, looking forward to the third book.
Rudy Rucker's Postsingular followed by Hylozoic are great books. It's a rather humorous view on postsingular way of life. It's hard to describe his books and Rucker's writing style is not everyone's cup of tea but William Gibson likes it.
Also if you haven't read anything from Michael Swanwick you should give his books a try. It's not strictly science fiction because he likes to slide into more psychedelic and surreal areas of fiction. But I consider that his charm. Start with The Iron Dragon's Daughter.
I also have to mention Cory Doctorow's Down and Out In the Magic Kingdom. I actually don't really like Doctorow's works. Some of them are boring. But this particular book is an exception and absolutely worth reading. A lot of interesting ideas are in play there including reputation based currency, eternal life (through ability to backup/restore body and memories) and extreme transhumanism.
Asimov's Foundation (I only recommend the trilogy, though; Foundation's Edge is good but will make you want to read Foundation and Earth, which does severe damage to the universe. Haven't read the prequels.)
Asimov's short stories
Tolkien
Ben Hur
The Count of Monte Cristo (brilliant revenge story)
A lot of Brandon Sanderson's work (The Stormlight Archive is promising to be fascinating)
Too long a list of other stuff to put here.
Currently, I am reading the third volume of Rick Atkinson's history of the second world war, The Guns at Last Light: The War in Western Europe, 1944-1945. I've enjoyed all three volumes over the past decade.
"Giant Steps: The Remarkable Story of the Goliath Expedition From Punta Arenas to Russia" by Karl Bushby
Unbelievable what it feels like to just take off...
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0751536954
"Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination"
The first third of the book is remarkable in that Walt Disney constantly struggles with failure.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0679757473
"Swimming to Antarctica: Tales of a Long-Distance Swimmer" by Lynne Cox
Her story is all about single focus on doing what you want to do.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0013L8AQQ
"Born Standing Up: A Comic's Life" by Steve Martin
It's hard to sum it up to a couple of favorites... If you prefer hardcore sci-fi over the rest - as I do, those are definitely first choices: - Iain M. Banks Culture books ("Excession" being the best of all to me) - Simmon's "Hyperion" and "Fall of Hyperion"
Some authors managed to bring some good pieces of space-opera without being too much cheesy: - Hamilton and his Void books, - and, of course, Herbert and the Dune stuff. But I must warn the casual reader here: those kind of books can get really massive.
Second choices - but still really good books, would be stuff written by great guys like Asimov ("Foundation"), OS Card ("Enders game") or RC Wilson ("Spin").
I also recently read Kafka's The Trial, which I've long known about but never read, and it was good but not at all what I expected. For some reason I expected Kafka to be an intimidating, serious writer, based on how his name has come to be used metaphorically. But The Trial is a very easy read, engaging and plot-driven, moving along at a fast pace. You can read it in a few hours, and it feels like light reading, despite having some serious content.
Outside science fiction: P.G. Wodehouse's Jeeves and Wooster novels, as well as what of his other books I've read, are hilarious and brilliant; I would suggest "Right Ho, Jeeves" as a starting point.
Other favorites: Crossing to Safety by Wallace Stegner, In Our Time by Hemingway, The Magus by John Fowles, 100 years of solitude, Moby Dick (perhaps a precursor to all modern fantasy?) Stranger in a Strange Land, and Infinite Jest. I've also loved both of DFW's big essay collections: Consider the Lobster and A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll never Do Again.
I love reading actual sci-fi too, and was most impressed by the Lost Fleet series by Jack Campbell. Can absolutely recommend those.
Note: I didn't come to these titles myself, they were recommended by Steve Gibson from the 'Security Now' podcast. I couldn't agree more with his taste.
From Falling Bodies to Radio Waves, Emilio Segre
A River Runs Through It, Norman MacleanOther favorites, not including those mentioned by others already are Jurassic Park and the Harry Potter series. I like to go back and read these often.
For fun, my favorite, far and away is Foxtrot by Bill Amend.
They present a lot of challenges that mankind may face in the future as our technology exceeds us, but they are also very entertaining.
Another would be halting state but time have properly overrun it.
He even have a interesting background as a programmer/tech writer/pharmacist, read it here: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/07/how_i_go...
I haven't read her other books, but from a literary perspective, Anthem has the same problem that I gather her other works have, just in miniature: there is a core of an actual novel there and it's starting to build an interesting world and characters, but then at some point it degenerates into a pages-and-pages-long non-fiction essay in Ayn Rand's voice pasted into the book, with a pretty flimsy excuse for what these pages of text are doing in a novel (I think in Anthem it's the character thinking out loud or something).
I don't think everything she has to say is bad, wrong or unimportant, even if I think she was nutty, verbose and a poor writer, but I was pointing out that she isn't nearly as important, from my perspective, as the OP claimed.
It's (been) required reading at West Point, amongst other places in the US. High-school reading lists are probably poor indicators: Plato, Nietzche, and Kant would be Atypical if not unheard of (if that is your standard).
Atlas shrugged has other interesting reasons to read it, however. Its main theme is actually dealing with assholes at work. Academics are embarrased by it, because its filled with "non-collegial" behaviour. But that just means they don't get out much.
Economics as a field which assumes opportunistic and deceitful behaviour are non-events. Atlas Shrugged is a great reminder of the fallacy in that. A typical Economist would consider Rand a "Crackpot", for using opportunistic and deceitful behaviour as basis for an empirical philosophy. But consider that lawyers get paid to write contracts to mitigaet the very dangers that economists assume away. Your Lawyer will tell you...never trust an Economist...theyre all crackpots and live in Ivy towers. =D
As a side bar, have you actually read Nietzche? I think academics (and a few of his old landlords) would consider him more of a "crackpot" than Rand. Clearly Rand and Nietzsche have nothing in common? Perhaps other than its the lie that tells the truth.
Academics are embarrased by it, because its filled with "non-collegial" behaviour. But that just means they don't get out much.
Where on earth are you getting this? Academics celebrate texts far less collegial than Rand's. Rand's work, as literature, is dismissed because, as literature, it isn't very good. Her work isn't taken seriously or engaged with philosophically for other reasons, but propriety isn't one of them. To invoke the ancient stereotype of the "stuffy academic" is ludicrous. Academics today are probably the most open-minded, least proprietous group around.
I think academics (and a few of his old landlords) would consider him more of a "crackpot" than Rand.
I can't speak to the attitudes of his old landlords, but no, modern academics do not consider him a crackpot. For political reasons he was in and out of favor around the times of WW1 and WW2 (due to the misappropriation of his work by various groups, most famously the Nazis), but he's never ceased to be hugely important to continental philosophy, and Walter Kauffmann set the record straight and rehabilitated his image for the English-speaking world decades ago.
In the humanities you can either avoid drawing any definite conclusions (e.g. conclude that an issue is a complex one), or draw conclusions so narrow that no one cares enough to disagree with you. The kind of philosophy I'm advocating won't be able to take either of these routes. At best you'll be able to achieve the essayist's standard of proof..."
Sound familiar? Slightly Nietzshean?
Likewise, Rand's heterodox views have made her about as popular as Larry Summers at a "women in STEM" mixer, but then she pre-dated by 50 years the 3 [economics] nobels that took Nietszchen epistimology seriously (1991, 2002, 2009).
People still confuse here work with being expositions of free-market economics. This of course is non-sensical. What is relevant and unique is that she takes seriously the key omitted behavioural assumptions of neo-liberal Economics. Which is a contr-indication of blind support for neo-liberal economics.[1]
Her work is most intersting in its analysis of the internal workings of firms, a point directly off the map of neo-classical economics (Coase: the nature of the firm 1932, nobel 1991), in particular the non-market (hierarchy) driven decisioning mechanics.
The nature of these dynamics (ie, expositions of opportunism and bounded rationality), are precisely the types of discussions dismissed by post-frege philosophy as 'crackpot', in the sense of not being formalistically relevant to Academic philosophy (viz: At best you'll be able to achieve the essayist's standard of proof).
But these topics are slightly more interesting than that.
And not exactly the work of a "crackpot".
_______
[1] Ironically, "L"iberal interventionist economic types have a greater problem with her critique of "conservative" economics. Her critique of the neo-classical assumptions also applies to its derivatives, including the variant of neo-classical commonly known as 'welfare' economics. This is the modern "L"iberal branch of economics. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_economics
All fine and good, but your claim was "academics...would consider him more of a 'crackpot' than Rand." That's what I replied to, because it's not true.
You asked the parent commenter "have you actually read Nietzche?" Well, I have, cover to cover, including the Nachlass. More importantly, I've read exhaustively in the tradition that descends from him. Nietzsche had an enormous influence on Heidegger, Gadamer, Deleuze, Foucault, Blanchot, Derrida, and just about every other important continental philosopher of the last century. And then there are all the critics, novelists, poets, painters, sculpters...
There's simply no point comparing Nietzsche's reputation to Rand's. No one credible has ever really considered him to be a "crackpot." Even analytic philosophers like Searle appreciate Nietzsche.
He was widely (wrongly) viewed as tin foil hat (nihlist, etc) for 100 years.
No, not widely, and not for 100 years. Nietzsche's impact was already being felt both philosophically and in the arts by the 1910s.
PG's great essay on the history of philosophy doesn't even mention him
A few things, here.
1) It's not an essay on the history of philosophy, though it does have a section titled "History," which limits itself to a cursory discussion of Aristotle's Metaphysics.
2) Much as I respect pg, I'm not sure why I should put any stock in the selection of thinkers in this essay or credit his views on philosophy. He was a philosophy major for "most" of college? Nifty, but like most humanities disciplines in modern universities, philosophy, at the undergraduate level, just gets you caught up with where you should've been when you finished high school, had high school actually done its job. Even from this short treatment, it's clear that there are huge gaps both in pg's knowledge and in his understanding of, for example, Wittgenstein and Aristotle. Which leads me to:
3) The essay is simply wrong in many of its assertions. For example:
"The proof of how useless some of their answers turned out to be is how little effect they have. No one after reading Aristotle's Metaphysics does anything differently as a result."
If you're interested in just how off base this is historically, here are a few things that might interest you:
[-] Any of James Joyce's novels, or any criticism exploring the philosophical undercurrents of his work, e.g. The Aesthetics of James Joyce by Jacques Aubert. Joyce had a Jesuit education. Aristotle's influence is immediate, palpable, and bears incredible fruit.
[-] A fair bit of Ezra Pound's poetry and criticism (ABC of Reading, Guide to Kulchur, The Spirit of Romance, various essay collections like Machine Art and Other Writings, and so on). Pound was influenced not only by the Metaphysics but by the Nicomachean Ethics and the Rhetoric.
[-] Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the Later Middle Ages, by A.J. Minnis. I mention this in a last-but-not-least way, as Minnis traces a clear path from Aristotle to how we read today.
Now, does the average person do anything differently as a result of reading Aristotle? Of course not, at least not as a direct result. The average person doesn't do anything differently as a result of much at all (that's what makes them average). But the people who set the terms of culture, the influencers? You bet your ass they do -- if not as a result of reading Aristotle, then as a result of reading some contemporary equivalent, e.g. Plato -> Baudrillard -> The Matrix -> Average Person.
Sound familiar? Slightly Nietzshean?
Not to me, no.
in the sense of not being formalistically relevant to Academic philosophy
For analytic philosophers maybe, but continental philosophers decoupled rigor from exactness long ago. Lack of exactness wouldn't stop them from reading Rand, if they thought there was value there.
But you don't need to defend Rand to me. I'm indifferent, not hostile. I only popped into the discussion to point out that Nietzsche's place in the philosophical canon is secure.
It's (been) required reading at West Point, amongst other places in the US.
I didn't know that. Thanks. It must be more popular than I realized, but I still don't see where it's considered terribly crucial in general, as the original comment claimed. I shouldn't have made it sound like my personal claim was any indication of absolute reality. My mistake. A survey would probably lay this issue to rest, but this was really supposed to be a one-off comment.
Atlas shrugged has other interesting reasons to read it, however. Its main theme is actually dealing with assholes at work. Academics are embarrased by it, because its filled with "non-collegial" behaviour. But that just means they don't get out much. Economics as a field which assumes opportunistic and deceitful behaviour are non-events. Atlas Shrugged is a great reminder of the fallacy in that. A typical Economist would consider Rand a "Crackpot", for using opportunistic and deceitful behaviour as basis for an empirical philosophy. But consider that lawyers get paid to write contracts to mitigaet the very dangers that economists assume away. Your Lawyer will tell you...never trust an Economist...theyre all crackpots and live in Ivy towers. =D
Chill! I'm speaking on what my impression is of the popular opinion on Rand in education, not what I think of Rand myself.
Also, your statement that the main theme of Atlas Shrugged being about "dealing with assholes at work" is very interesting and I'm not sure how you came up with that.
As a side bar, have you actually read Nietzche? I think academics (and a few of his old landlords) would consider him more of a "crackpot" than Rand. Clearly Rand and Nietzsche have nothing in common? Perhaps other than its the lie that tells the truth.
I've read some of Nietzsche's stuff, and yes, Rand is very much an imitation of him (what does that prove and why are you asking me that rhetorically?). I'm still not sure I buy that Nietzsche is considered more of a "Crackpot" by academics than Rand is, having gone to a university in the US and having seen firsthand the curriculum in a philosophy class, but it's completely subjective, so you might be right.
West Point has no business assigning either book to any class presented to a future Army Officer. I mean it: None.
I would get rid of any instructor who required students to read either Atlas or Fountainhead. The heroes in both books behave immorally by any sane standard, in terms of what West Point Cadets are being taught in their other classes. Howard Roark commits a violent rape in Chapter Two -- later, he blows up a sky scraper. John Galt would simply be considered a terrorist today.
Probably among members of the political faction that identifies with the author's philosophy, but among people outside of that faction not so much. It's certainly not a consensus view in the US; its far from a must-read in any practical sense, though most moderately political aware people with a college education probably are aware of it, even if they haven't read it.
I am cheating with an audiobook though....spend a lot of time in a car=)
"Letters to a Young Contrarian" by the same.
and "Unpopular Essays" by Bertrand Russell.