
100 Must-Read Books: The Essential Man’s Library - nickb
http://artofmanliness.com/2008/05/14/100-must-read-books-the-essential-mans-library/
======
ojbyrne
The Top N lists feel so much like digg. Books are pretty personal decisions -
the first page included a few large, challenging books that personally I
couldn't be bothered with, and it really felt like stuff was shoehorned in
just because it was "supposed" to be there. But I have read other large
challenging books and been rewarded, so maybe that's just me.

Personally I'd recommend

\- read more than 100 books.

\- read "Catch 22" - the blurb here does not do justice to how funny the book
is. I still remember how much my sides hurt.

~~~
thaumaturgy
Yay, I'm going to model my library after someone else's opinion of what I
ought to read! Literature ought to be a popularity contest!

I think I've read over half of the volumes mentioned there, and disliked a lot
of them. I thought "The Grapes of Wrath" was awful, and never did figure out
why anybody was ever impressed by "The Catcher In The Rye". To me, both of
those were good examples of books that people read because other people read
them, and nobody can really describe why they're so profound, but since
everybody else has read them, they must be. And, among all these "profound"
works, they included "Into Thin Air". I enjoyed it, and I used to be a
climber, but what's it doing on that list?

Then, there are the many titles not found on the list. How about "The
Decameron", for one? "Pale Blue Dot"? "A Brief History of Time"? "Cosmos"?
"The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam"?

And, I'd argue that reading should be done as much for enjoyment as for
edification. So, why not some "Calvin and Hobbes"? Or "Words I Wish I Wrote"?
Or some Neil Gaiman or Greg Bear or George RR Martin?

I'm not ranting at you; I agree with you 100%. Your comment just seemed like
an appropriate place to attach a rant against the article. :-)

~~~
ojbyrne
Just to illustrate the gist of what both of us are saying, I loved "Catcher in
the Rye." It was my disaffected youth, so I identified strongly with Holden
Caulfield.

------
menloparkbum
I hate to agree with "artofmanliness.com", but aside from the obligatory Ayn
Rand bullshit, the list wasn't too bad.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
Why is Ayn Rand bullshit?

~~~
mikedouglas
You don't need to write a 600 page book to convince people to be selfish.

~~~
thaumaturgy
Aaaargh. According to her own words, Rand didn't set out to convince anybody
of anything. In fact, if a particular reader needed to be convinced of any of
Rand's ideals, then that reader probably wouldn't understand what Rand was
writing about anyway -- and indeed I find that that describes the bulk of
people commenting on her stories.

From the introduction written in "The Fountainhead":

"Was The Fountainhead written for the purpose of presenting my philosophy? ...
This is the motive and purpose of my writing: the projection of an ideal man.
The portrayal of a moral ideal, as my ultimate literary goal ... Let me stress
this: my purpose is NOT the philosophical enlightenment of my readers..."

...and so forth. Emphasis was hers, BTW. Having read both "Atlas Shrugged" and
"The Fountainhead", I didn't need to read an author's introduction to know
that they were both simply works of fiction intended to glorify ideas that she
thought were important. What's most frustrating is the way people conflate
those ideas; the notion of a society without any regulation at all was only a
minor element in a work of fiction intended to describe this complete
exaltation of creativity.

I would have expected that reverence for the creative human spirit would be
better received here.

------
maurycy
Fiction books are overrated. I've read most of the books listed there and I
don't have an impression that they've changed my life or my way of thinking.
The only reason why I did so was social pressure to be an erudit. 100 of these
books will change you less than Blackswan etc.

------
nazgulnarsil
most hackers are already anarchistic and or libertarians so it isn't
surprising that we think Ayn Rand is bullshit. We're already individualistic
and questioning of the status quo. But for people whom aren't like this Ayn
Rand can be an important author to read. For example women tend to be more
caring and communal instead of selfish and rational. It doesn't surprise me
that successful business women really like Atlas Shrugged. They need to hear a
justification for the pursuit of selfish aims moreso than a libertarian does.

The things that hit close to home but are slightly off bother people a lot
more than things from left field. evangelical christians touting their
creationist museum bothers me more than muslims beating women, even though the
latter is worse. The evangelicals are in my backyard. Likewise libertarians
are bothered by Rand because she espouses some of our ideals but horribly
twists others.

~~~
mattmaroon
Hackers are more liberal than libertarian. Rand embodies libertarianism. I
assume that's what you meant?

~~~
nazgulnarsil
what definition of liberal and libertarian are you going on?

~~~
mattmaroon
I don't know of a definition of libertarian that Ayn Rand doesn't fit into.
Technically she was an objectivist and spoke out against the anarchist
libertarians, who are mostly gone from the movement now. By today's standards
she'd be a true libertarian.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
Ayn Rand was a strict Laissez-Faire capitalist while libertarian political
ideology encompasses a broader swath of positions on government regulation.
Anarcho-libertarians believe in the totally free market while more moderate
libertarians believe that the primary purpose of governmnet is as an
intermediate between an individuals natural rights and the repercussions of
the free market (externalities).

~~~
mattmaroon
Go ahead and Google "Ayn Rand libertarian". You'll see quotes immediately like
"Russian-born Ayn Rand (1905-1982) brought more people into the libertarian
movement than anybody else."

Also from her Wikipedia bio "Rand is considered one of the three founding
mothers (along with Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson) of modern American
libertarianism"

Rand was too intelligent to be an anarchist.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
I think I get what you're saying. Rand was a minarchist in most senses. The
waters of libertarianism are very muddied.Just browsing wikipedia you get
liberalism, libertarianism, calssical conservativism, capiatl L
Libertarianism, minarchism,and calissical liberalism. and the terms mean
different things internationally.

~~~
mattmaroon
I love how I somehow get downmodded for pointing out a relatively simple fact.

------
mattmaroon
Wow is that the worst website I've ever seen. It's like someone took this Skin
Bracer advertisement and turned it into a blog:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9znxZRWQc4>

------
gabriel
I never liked long lists of books, they tend to freak readers out too much. I
think someone should pick one and if that one is any good, then it will lead
you to the next, whatever it may be. Repeat as necessary :)

