• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

200 Superb Books Everyone Should Read At Least Once

Flowers for Algernon is not on the list? :shock:

Big mistake. IMO

To me, it should have stayed a short story. I thought it was much more effective that way. Still way better than alot of the list though.

I could nitpick that list all to hell, but I will just pick a few.

No The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya is a big mistake. One of the more accessible and entertaining books out of Japan.

Not much science fiction, and most of it of the "well, people talk about this book" variety. I would have included Cyteen, A Civil Affair, A Scanner Darkly at the very least.

What is with having a bunch of books by the same author. I love Pratchett's books, but would have kept it to 2 or 3(or considered Discworld as one entry, and maybe The Bromeliad Trilogy as another) so as to add some, you know, variety.

4 Harry Potter books? Really?

I would have gone with 9 Stories instead of(or better yet, in addition to) Catcher in the Rye. A Perfect Day For Bananafish is one of the all time great short stories.

Flowers in the Attic? Really?
 
Interesting list. I have read maybe 30% of the books on it. But that is in large part because, like the creators of that list, I too have a Terry Pratchett obsession.
 
200 Superb Books Everyone Should Read At Least Once


In alphabetical order. Each title is a link to a book's Amazon page. My book list would be quite a bit different, but I've read many they've listed here.
Someone apparently got confused, in their attempt to garner pageviews.

That list is actually from a 2003 BBC viewer questionnaire, asking people to list their favorite books.

It's not a list of "what you should read." It's "what Brits were reading in 2003."

Lazy, lazy, lazy....
 
Someone apparently got confused, in their attempt to garner pageviews.

That list is actually from a 2003 BBC viewer questionnaire, asking people to list their favorite books.

It's not a list of "what you should read." It's "what Brits were reading in 2003."

Lazy, lazy, lazy....

Maybe lazy but mostly a decent list. I disagree with catcher in the Rye though. I think that has to be the most overrated book ever written. (well at least of any book I have ever read, but that doesnt convey my disdain for the book as well)
 
Subpar list because John Triptych's books aren't in it. ;)
 
Maybe lazy but mostly a decent list. I disagree with catcher in the Rye though. I think that has to be the most overrated book ever written. (well at least of any book I have ever read, but that doesnt convey my disdain for the book as well)
I'm sorry, but... As a "Books Everyone Should Read," it's utterly dismal.

No Shakespeare, but it has Bridget Jones' Diary

No Ralph Ellison or James Baldwin or Toni Morrison, but it has fourteen YA books by Jacqueline Wilson

Only 4 out of the 7 Harry Potter books -- I guess the last 3 sucked?

No African authors
No Asian authors
No Central or South American authors

Sorry, but I really don't see how this is a good guide to important literature. Nor was it intended to be! It was only "what Brits were reading in 2003."
 
I'm sorry, but... As a "Books Everyone Should Read," it's utterly dismal.

No Shakespeare, but it has Bridget Jones' Diary

No Ralph Ellison or James Baldwin or Toni Morrison, but it has fourteen YA books by Jacqueline Wilson

Only 4 out of the 7 Harry Potter books -- I guess the last 3 sucked?

No African authors
No Asian authors
No Central or South American authors

Sorry, but I really don't see how this is a good guide to important literature. Nor was it intended to be! It was only "what Brits were reading in 2003."

spot on
when i see such lists, if 'moby dick' is shown, i discontinue reading it
 
only 1 book every1 shuld read imo and thats tha bible

Which is quite probably why bible thumpers tend to be less well informed than prolific readers in all subjects.

IMO
 
i have read probably 70% of what is on the list....

but way too many things left off the list to even mention

Lets just start with the the first trilogy....the Iliad

Where are the foreign writers?

Män som hatar kvinnor ? Or as most of you know it...." the girl with the dragon tattoo"

literature is one of things too many people rate, and not enough actually READ

this reminds me of that adage.....
 
200 books? I will wait for the 200 movies so I can hear you say, "The book was so much better." 200 times :2razz:

Huck Finn is the only book I think everybody should read.
 
I'm sorry, but... As a "Books Everyone Should Read," it's utterly dismal.

No Shakespeare, but it has Bridget Jones' Diary

No Ralph Ellison or James Baldwin or Toni Morrison, but it has fourteen YA books by Jacqueline Wilson

Only 4 out of the 7 Harry Potter books -- I guess the last 3 sucked?

No African authors
No Asian authors
No Central or South American authors

Sorry, but I really don't see how this is a good guide to important literature. Nor was it intended to be! It was only "what Brits were reading in 2003."

I didnt say it was a great list, just decent list.
 
Back
Top Bottom