
Ask HN: What literature do you read? - null_ptr
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.
======
bsenftner
Herman Hesse "The Glass Bead Game" is incredible. For great mind fucks, check
out the crime fiction of Jim Thompson: 1st person, you're a petty crook, dumb
& scared, people trying to kill you are right behind you, and most the books
end with you being caught and killed in the last sentence. It takes a day or
two to shake off his books' reality.

~~~
cprncus
Thanks for the spoilers. I'll pass, now.

~~~
a_bonobo
As someone who's read some of Jim Thompson's books (notably The Killer Inside
Me and Pop. 1280), that's not really a spoiler, the books are quite different
from that.

------
enra
After reading Game of Thrones I wanted to read more book series, so went with
science fiction ones:

    
    
      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)
    

All those are pretty great in sense of that they take set in span of thousands
of years, and touch bit different ideas around society, myths, religion,
morals, physical and mental technologies.

Other than that, been been enjoying some classic literature, Zen and Art of
Motorcycle Maintenance, James Clavell, Haruki Murakami and books about Richard
Feynman.

~~~
thejulielogan
Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series is rather epic, as well.

~~~
msh
but far too long, he should have tied it up after the first five books or so.

~~~
thejulielogan
agreed. Sadly GOT seems to be going down the same path

------
BWStearns
I've been chewing through some Neil Stephenson books lately. I think a lot of
his earlier work was somewhat prescient (in terms of general themes) and some
of his newer work bring up some interesting societal points especially about
the role of government with regards to technology. Another theme that I feel
is particularly relevant lately is the bifurcation of the technically skilled
(or even aware) and the technically unskilled. He puts up an interesting split
in Anathema which wittingly or not might well represent a lot of the current
hacker/tech-elite discussion in society at large. Anathema is well worth a
read and Cryptonomicon is just plain fun (perhaps more relevant lately than it
was in its own time).

~~~
dragonwriter
Pedantic, perhaps, but the author's name is _Neal_ Stephenson, and the book is
_Anathem_ (its a blending of "anathema" and "anthem")

~~~
BWStearns
Haha, Sorry, wish I could edit that now. No more posting to HN after more than
three beers :) . Anathema was just a typo but I changed N[ie|ea]l back and
forth a few times.

My stupidity aside, awesome author and Anathem is definitely worth a read.

------
veidr
The trilogy of _Neuromancer_ , _Burning Chrome_ , and _Mona Lisa Overdrive_ is
still my favorite work of fiction, and also, to my mind, exemplifies the kind
of taut, awesome writing that I would want to do if I wrote novels. It the
only series of 3 books I have read more than once.

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.

~~~
veidr
Oops, I meant _Count Zero_ , not _Burning Chrome_. The latter isn't part of
the Sprawl trilogy, but rather a collection of short stories (some good, some
not so good).

------
kyzyl
As has already been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, most of Neil
Stephenson's work is just great. Cryptonomicon is my favorite, but The Baroque
Cycle (three books) is very good as well.

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.

~~~
rfergie
I think "King Rat" might also be part of James Clavell's series.

Even if it isn't, you should like it if you like the others

~~~
kyzyl
Yeah the Asian Saga includes King Rat, Shogun, Noble House, Taipan as well as
Gai-gin, The Whirlwind. They're all pretty good books but I believe Taipan,
Noble House and Shogun are considered Clavell's best work, in that order
(personally I like Noble House best).

Thanks for the recommendation though.

------
pavel_lishin
Does Goodreads allow "groups"? That could be handy.

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](http://www.goodreads.com/group/show/94469-hackernews)

~~~
a_bonobo
I'm in that group as well, but it's more or less dead - a problem is that
Goodreads doesn't really define what groups are about, and users don't really
see in their "timeline" when something new happens in a group.

Maybe the mods of that group could have a monthly book club or so?

------
niels_olson
Kafka. Catch 22. Orwell. Hemingway. Plato. But mostly pathology these days.

------
sown
I liked _Rainbows Edge_ because in addition to a nifty story, it felt like a
blueprint or use case for the near future. Marshall Brane's _Manna_ did
something similar, even if you don't consider it fine literature. Charles
Bukowski for poetry, which for some reason I can relate to, despite not
sharing any experiences with the author ... which kind of worries me.

Various practical books such as _Secrets of Power Negotiation_ by Roger Dawson
if that sort of thing will help you.

~~~
archenemy
Rainbow's Edge read to me like an up to date, go-with-the-times version of
Neuromancer. I'd should probably revisit it.

------
svag
I am currently reading a book called "The Housekeeper and the Professor" of
Yoko Ogawa.

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...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Housekeeper_and_the_Professor)

------
gillianseed
Nothing 'exotic' really, my all time favourites are Asimov, Heinlein, Philip
K.Dick, Stephen King (particularly dark tower series), Arthur C. Clarke, Orson
Scott Card (Ender series), William Gibson, Douglas Adams.

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.

------
Nekorosu
Everything from Vernor Vinge is top notch. Start with A Fire Upon the Deep. If
you like it read the other two books of the trilogy. It's a space opera by
degree of events but it never gets cheesy. The amount of ideas put into these
books never cease to amaze me.

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.

------
elehack
A lot of stuff:

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.

------
brudgers
While I often read Science Fiction and recently enjoyed Corey Doctorow's
_Rapture of the Nerds_ , Last week I finished Jeet Thayil's _Narcopolis_.

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.

------
wallflower
I love biographies/auto-biographies of people _not_ in technology (directly)
who live an interesting life.

"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](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](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](http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0013L8AQQ)

"Born Standing Up: A Comic's Life" by Steve Martin

[http://www.amazon.com/dp/1416553657](http://www.amazon.com/dp/1416553657)

------
pasbesoin
I know from past threads on this topic that I am not the only person here who
has found Robert Pirsig's work worthwhile. I mention it because it is
currently on my nightstand, for the first repeat visit in too many years.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Pirsig](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Pirsig)

------
bpizzi
Well I'm definitely into sci-fi literature. There's simply nothing else
nowadays (being in my early thirties) which can caught my attention and
limited free time.

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").

------
mjn
I recently read one of Victor Hugo's shorter books, _The Toilers of the Sea_ ,
and quite enjoyed it. I like Hugo's writing in general: has a rich feeling of
time and place, with the style of the sentences he crafts sort of feeding into
it. He's not exactly underrated in general, but I don't meet many people in my
circles who read his novels.

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.

------
waterhouse
Isaac Asimov's robot series (start with "I, Robot" and "The Caves of Steel")
is good, as is his Foundation series. Ender's Game is also good; I've heard
other people complain about the other novels in that universe (Speaker for the
Dead and sequels, Ender's Shadow and sequels), but I liked them fine.
Cryptonomicon is rich, fascinating, and entertaining. Dune is rich and pretty
fascinating. Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" and "Time Enough for
Love" are somewhat scandalous, but I thoroughly enjoyed them.

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.

------
FennNaten
For me, mostly Sci-Fi and Fantasy. Phillip K. Dick, Roger Zelazny, Isaac
Asimov, William Gibson, Stephen King, Neil Gaiman, Georges R.R Martin,
Tolkien, Raymond E Feist, David Gemell, Robin Hobb, Anne Mc Caffrey, Fritz
Leiber, J.V. Jones, Moorcock, Jack Vance, Van Vogt, Robert Charles Wilson,
Lucius Shepard, Ray Bradbury, Scott Lynch, Peter V Brett, E.E Knight... just
for those coming to my mind right now and internationally known. I also read
french writers in the same genre: Roland C Wagner, Claude Ecken, Lionel
Davoust, Fabien Clavel, Pierre Pevel, Justine Niogret, Eric Wietzel, Alain
Damasio, Ayerdhal, Sylvie Miller, Philippe Ward, Thomas Geha, Laurent Whale,
Jeanne A Debats, Anne Fakhouri... And a lot more. I'm a bookworm so the list's
always growing ^^'

------
macrael
East of Eden is my favorite book I've read in the last several years.
Beautiful end to end and very moral. If you've read it it's totally worth
reading Journal of a Novel: a collection of letters Steinbeck wrote to his
editor every day as he was writing East of Eden. It's a fascinating window
into the mind of a master deliberately creating a masterpiece.

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.

------
pharrington
Reading The Second Sex right now. I need a bit of brush up on some history and
philosophy.

------
dietervds
I'm a huge fan of Daemon and Freedom(tm) by Daniel Suarez. I guess you can
call it a 'technology thriller', with some amazing ideas and impressions of
our society. His most recent book, Kill Decision, is along similar lines and
also great.

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.

------
rch
How about David Foster Wallace? Also China Miéville and Haruki Murakami.

~~~
L_Rahman
I went of a bit of a Murakami bender after reading The Wind Up Bird Chronicle.
While it's still my favorite of his works, Kafka on the Shore is pretty
fantastic as well.

------
zalzane
I came across an excellent list of science fiction awhile ago;

[http://4chanlit.wikia.com/wiki/Science_Fiction](http://4chanlit.wikia.com/wiki/Science_Fiction)

------
babuskov
My favorite is still Frank Herbert's Dune series.

------
craftsman
The two books I have active right now:

    
    
        From Falling Bodies to Radio Waves, Emilio Segre
        A River Runs Through It, Norman Maclean

------
b3b0p
My favorite fiction book is Shadows of the Empire by Steve Perry. I am not a
fan of the Star Wars books nor am I a hardcore Star Wars fan, but this book
captures me every time.

Other 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.

------
tartuffe78
Dan Simmons Hyperion and The Fall of Hyperion are two of the best novels I've
read. I read a lot of scifi, and I think they have held up very well compared
to some other works that came out in the 80s through the early 90s.

They present a lot of challenges that mankind may face in the future as our
technology exceeds us, but they are also very entertaining.

------
meerita
I read history books but also, many others. One of the best classics Sci-fi
I've read ever is The Riverworld saga by Josep Filip Farmer. I barealy guess
another serie can match the awesome of this story, maybe as some hackers point
out, The Foundation is another great series and will entertain you a lot.

------
pstack
I think I have read two pieces of fiction in my adult life. I'd love to read
for recreation much more, but if I have time to read a fantasy or horror or
science fiction novel, I have time to read something related to my field,
instead.

------
msh
anything by Charles Stross, the atrocity archive could be a good place to
start: humor, computers and cosmic horrors, whats not to like ;)

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...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2009/07/how_i_got_here_in_the_end_my_n.html)

------
wsc981
I recently started Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. From what I understand, in the
US the book is viewed as a must-read for students, but it's much less known
here in Europe.

~~~
jgg
You are horribly misinformed. Opinions or merits of the book aside, Ayn Rand
is viewed as a crackpot and is generally (I'm sure there are exceptions) not
taken seriously in academia, and I have never heard of any public highschool
that views _Atlas Shrugged_ as critical reading.

~~~
mdellabitta
We read "The Fountainhead," if that's anything. Doesn't mean the rest of what
you said is wrong.

~~~
jgg
I definitely should have been more clear. I meant that in terms of formal
philosophy, she isn't usually ranked up there with Plato, Nietzsche or Kant,
and that as far as literature goes, I haven't seen too many highschools
advocating _Atlas Shrugged_. Universities might (I'm not really sure), but
even then, I'm not sure it's really regarded as a "classic."

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.

~~~
001sky
_I have never heard of any public highschool that views Atlas Shrugged as
critical reading_

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.

~~~
FreakLegion
Plato and Nietzsche are far from atypical. Being two of the West's most
literary philosophers, they routinely turn up in high school. Excerpts from
Plato's _Repulic_ (e.g. _The Allegory of the Cave_ ) and any of Nietzsche's
aphoristic works are especially common.

 _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.

~~~
001sky
As a historical point, Nietszche was considered "unemployable" by german
Academia following Zara. and BGE printed on his own dime. He was widely
(wrongly) viewed as tin foil hat (nihlist, etc) for 100 years. PG's great
essay on the history of philosophy doesn't even mention him
([http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html)).
Nevertheless, look where he ends up...

 _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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_economics)

~~~
FreakLegion
_As a historical point..._

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.

------
PankajGhosh
Last 3 books: Game of thrones (1, 2, 3) Currently reading: The Rise and Fall
of the Third Reich (one of the comprehensive and popular works on the topic)

------
od2m
Vonnegut (Cat's Cradle, Slaughterhouse 5), Bukowski (Postman). Steinbeck
(Tortilla flat). All their stuff is good, but those are my favorites :)

------
aaronbrethorst
I'm surprised no one's mentioned Philip José Farmer and his Riverworld series.
The last book is comparatively weak, but the rest are great.

------
mehmehshoe
Weird Life: The Search for Life That Is Very, Very Different from Our Own.

I am cheating with an audiobook though....spend a lot of time in a car=)

------
jdrenterprises
"Arguably Essays" by Christopher Hitchens

"Letters to a Young Contrarian" by the same.

and "Unpopular Essays" by Bertrand Russell.

------
rch
The Crying of Lot 49 -- Thomas Pynchon

~~~
WesternStar
This is quite possibly the best book I have ever read.

------
crisnoble
I tell everyone I meet who is into books to read "House of Leaves" by Mark Z.
Danielewski.

------
bra-ket
Frederik Pohl's Gateway

------
mdellabitta
Catch 22 One Hundred Years of Solitude The Infinite Jest Cryptonomicon

~~~
xanth
Catch 22 Subtext: One Hundred Years of Solitude The Infinite Jest
Cryptonomicon :P

------
dshipper
Kazuo Ishiguro is a favorite: Remains of the Day, Never Let Me Go

------
acl2149
reading stanley milgrams obedience to authority. Hoping to start a biography
on oppenheimer soon. Don't know which biography to choose though

------
deletes
Harry Potter; Tales of Pirx the Pilot (Stanislaw Lem)

~~~
lars512
If you haven't read "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality", you're in
for a treat: [http://hpmor.com/](http://hpmor.com/)

~~~
deletes
I have set my mind years ago to completely ignore Potter fan-fiction, regards
of its quality.

~~~
lcedp
You're missing out. I'd liked HPMOR much more then original story. Thought
it's quite geeky which not everyone likes.

------
finin
Wool by Hugh Howey

------
incidence
H.P. Lovecraft :)

------
kvu787
Huckleberry Finn

------
amjd
Reading The Book Thief at the moment.

------
speakr
A Song of Ice and Fire

------
jackjeff
Judas Unchained

