Favorite Novels Not Written By Ayn Rand

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

All the Ian Fleming Bond novels from Casino Royale to the Man with the Golden Gun

I've wanted to read the Bond novels for a long time, but I have this creeping feeling that they're probably nothing more than second-rate spy mysteries without the charm of the cinematic Bond.

Is this a notion I should be disabused of, or is it correct?

Michelle,

I read many of them when I was young before I ever read Ayn Rand. They used to set my mind on fire. I would not trade my memories of reading James Bond in my youth for anything.

It has been years since I have read one of these books and I have become much more jaded than back then, but I have no doubt if I ever pick one back up, I will let it all go, jump back into that world with both feet and will be just as enchanted as before.

Don't let any cynic tell you what Fleming's writing is "really about" without reading it for yourself. It's marvelous. You cut off a most charming addition to your inner wealth if you take any cynic's view of Fleming's writing over Fleming's writing.

Michael

[Michelle]

Ah, I left out I, Claudius and Claudius the God, by Robert Graves. I also liked King Jesus, but not as much as the Claudius books.

I, Claudius is a book you'd recommend?

Highly. Very. Does that surprise you? Or was I just unclear that that was a recommendation.

One's favorite novels are not always books one would recommend to others unreservedly.

Okay, well, I'd go so far as to make I, Claudius required reading for any 14 year old. The BBC adaptation is excellent, a hint as how to do Atlas Shrugged. As for King Jesus, I doubt most Objectivists would like it. It is all about levantine mysticism. But I have read it twice.

Favorite books as secret vices? I suppose only Piers Anthony's work would fall under that category. I read everything he published until I was 16. (He has published lots since then that I have never read.) He is a hack juvenile writer. His plots are akll about contrived moral dilemmas usually set up because people make silly assumptions about what others are thinking, and they refuse to communicate, getting everyone in trouble - the typical sit com plot device. But I did recently reread Battle Circle, one of my former favorites of his 30 years ago. It was okay. I see why I liked it. But I wouldn't recommend it now except to a 12 year old boy.

No, not as secret vices. I don't believe in secret vices. I think it's a clever way to make one feel disdain for perfectly legitimate fiction.

For instance, I like JD Robbs' In Death series. I don't regard the series as a 'secret vice.' I think it's an excellent series with an imaginative setting, decent writing, intriguing characters, puzzling mysteries, and hot romance.

What I mean is that a fiction one likes might not be something most people would like. If a person's favorite novel was Ulysses, would he be wise to recommend it unreservedly to others?

[Michelle]

All the Ian Fleming Bond novels from Casino Royale to the Man with the Golden Gun

I've wanted to read the Bond novels for a long time, but I have this creeping feeling that they're probably nothing more than second-rate spy mysteries without the charm of the cinematic Bond.

Is this a notion I should be disabused of, or is it correct?

Michelle,

I read many of them when I was young before I ever read Ayn Rand. They used to set my mind on fire. I would not trade my memories of reading James Bond in my youth for anything.

It has been years since I have read one of these books and I have become much more jaded than back then, but I have no doubt if I ever pick one back up, I will let it all go, jump back into that world with both feet and will be just as enchanted as before.

Don't let any cynic tell you what Fleming's writing is "really about" without reading it for yourself. It's marvelous. You cut off a most charming addition to your inner wealth if you take any cynic's view of Fleming's writing over Fleming's writing.

Michael

Oh, I don't know what others think about the books. But I have wasted plenty of time on bad popular fiction. It isn't a mistake I enjoy making. It's one of the reasons I've retreated to 19th century literature - with few exceptions (Flaubert and Henry James, for example, can go to hell for all I care), I tend to enjoy what I read from that large pool of literature.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Michelle R

[kiaer.ts]

What I mean is that a fiction one likes might not be something most people would like. If a person's favorite novel was Ulysses, would he be wise to recommend it unreservedly to others?

You'd have to ask someone willing to pretend to such nonsense, Like Rich Engle. Anyone who tells you his favorite meal is broken glass is up to something.

[Michelle]

What I mean is that a fiction one likes might not be something most people would like. If a person's favorite novel was Ulysses, would he be wise to recommend it unreservedly to others?

You'd have to ask someone willing to pretend to such nonsense, Like Rich Engle. Anyone who tells you his favorite meal is broken glass is up to something.

I've already stated my judgment of Ulysses (disciplined style; worthless content). Perhaps there are people out there who legitimately enjoy a book like Ulysses because of the skill involved in its construction. I'm not one of them. It's painful to even think about Joyce wasting his talent and energy on rubbish. Nevertheless, as far as there is no objective criterion on which to base the value of fiction, I'd be cautious of condemning people for their preferred literature.

You're not seeing the point, however. How about The Brothers Karamazov, or War and Peace? Not all novels should be unreservedly recommended. If a person wants an engaging read that won't make them think very hard (most people I've met, sadly), you probably wouldn't recommend Notes From Underground to them.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Michelle R

[Selene]

Ted/Michelle

Interesting discussion.

"One's favorite novels are not always books one would recommend to others unreservedly."

I almost always would recommend only novels that are my favorites. However, I will qualify it, e.g., Anthem, I will say something akin to ...not everybody finds the language easy to get used to at first.

Or, Newt Gingrich's brilliant series on the Civil War, or Drury, I will qualify the recommendations.

For example, The Universal Baseball Association, Inc. : J. Henry Waugh, Prop. Robert Coover, 1932- - which is one of my favorite novels because of when I read it. This reviewer put it in his all time best 10 sports list.

Orrin's All-Time Top Ten List - Sports

"Henry Waugh is a fifty-something accountant with no family, no friends & no future at work. All he has going for him is that he is the creator & sole proprietor of the Universal Baseball Association. Henry has invented a Stratomatic-type baseball game & taken it to the nth degree. He has rules for virtually every possible occurrence & potential roll of the dice. He has populated the game with players of his own creation. These players even participate in off season activities, like pinball tournaments, and get involved in Association politics when they retire. There are retired players because Henry has played out over fifty UBA seasons. Henry hasn't simply created a game, he's created a personal Universe.

The greatest player in Association history was Brock Rutherford and now his son, Damon Rutherford, is taking the UBA by storm. Henry's enthusiasm for the Association has waned in recent years, but the rise of Damon Rutherford has renewed his interest. Suddenly the game is fun again and Henry's life seems full & interesting. When young Damon throws a perfect game, Henry is so caught up in the excitement that he tampers with his own rules and allows Damon to start his next game on one day of rest. And, of course, when the Creator tampers with his own rules, his creations will pay the price.

The first 150 or so pages of this book are absolutely fabulous. As disaster befalls the Association & Henry's life crumbles around him he loses the ability to separate reality from fantasy and the book too becomes confused, but it is still a terrific read."

The book is fantastic, but would I unreservedly recommend it - no way.

What about favorite non-fiction. Does that have a "recommend unreservedly" decision to make also?

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

Well, you have to take the context of the reader into account. Of course I wouldn't recommend Name of the Rose to a club-footed busboy at Denny's. But for most eductaed adult readers my favorites are quite suitable.

[Michelle]

I could make a good case for why all of my favorite books are quality pieces of literature which should be read by everyone if I wanted to. This does not mean, however, that they would appeal to everyone. This might come with odd writing styles, heady dialogue, complex or slowly-paced plots, etc.

The Brothers Karamazov is one of my favorite novels. I think it is a fantastic piece of fiction which uses colorful characters, a mysterious plot, and penetrating dialogue to explore a variety of fascinating religious ideas. It is a superb integration of character, theme, and plot into one seamless whole.

It is also a roughly thousand page novel with a relatively slow plot development, complex character developments which might be seen as baffling to the reader who is not well-acquainted with Dostoevsky, and an excess of long 'talking heads' dialogues. Not to mention the overtly ponderous nature of some of these dialogues (the 'Grand Inquisitor and Rebellion' dialogue in the cafe between Alyosha and Ivan comes to mind).

I would recommend this novel highly to almost anyone, but not without some slight reservations based on who I am recommending it to. You mention a club-footed busboy, but what about people who don't want to have to wade through extensive amounts of history lessons to get to the story's main plot? It isn't merely a matter of 'not getting it.' Yes, most educated adults will 'get' The Name of the Rose. But what sense does it make to recommend a book to them if you know they probably won't like it?

Take my tastes, for example. I don't mind novels which contain extensive explanatory passages on historical developments so long as these passages are well-integrated into the plot and are necessary in order to understand the contextual action of the characters. Much as I dislike it, I remember the first LOTR book being good in this regard. Most of Hugo's work, and the work of other decent historical novelists, are also good in this regard.

Les Miserables showcases both good and bad examples of how to integrate history into a novel. Most of the novel weaves historical overviews into the fabric of the plot with skill and ease. You might be treated to a description of a certain French town in earlier years before the action taking place in that town started. Often times Hugo uses Valjean's flight through France as a way to describe the changing geography of certain places. Now, the bad example should be obvious: the account of the battle of Waterloo. This nearly 50 page segment, almost completely unrelated to the plot (until the end, when we see how it connects to Thernardier), is crammed in-between two sections of the book which would have otherwise gone naturally side-by-side. Ignoring the skill involved in its creation, this account is not at all integrated into the fabric of the plot, but is like food stuck in the gap between two teeth. When one hits that segment one feels, not the desire to taste more of Hugo's literary banquet, but to grab a toothpick and dislodge the trapped food.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Michelle R

[Over43]

The Agent of Chaos

Herzog

Running Scarred

All the Ian Fleming Bond novels from Casino Royale to the Man with the Golden Gun

Body by Science

O43

Can you expand? The books you mentioned except Herzog and the Bond novels (which I understand Rand read and liked) were not mentioned in wikipedia.

Sorry, actually Running Scarred is not a novel, but an autobiography of Tex Maule, a former (now deceased) writer for SI who suffered two massive heart atatcks in 1965. The book recounts his subesquent recovery, and return to normal life by taking up running at the suggestion of Kenneth Cooper. Come to think of it Body by Science (just published) isn't a novel either, but a book consisting of research into the use of high intensity, low frequency weight lifting on improving an indiviuals health.

So I brainfarted and read "novels" as "books". Anyway, the other books I do enjoy quite a bit. Regardless of their parody, or whatever else may be assumed.

O43

Edited June 17, 2009 by Over43

[Over43]

I forgot, I also enjoy the works of the English novelist Trevanian, "The Eiger Sanction", "Shibumi", etc. As well as Bernard Cornwell who wrote the "Sharpe" series, about a street gutter English boy who rises through the ranks of Wellington's army (as a rifleman) on grit, determination, and intelligence. Eventually Sharpe becomes Colonel, and not only has to fight the French on the battle field, but the entitled aristocratic English officers of lesser talent who are jealous of his leadership and combat skills.

O43

Edited June 20, 2009 by Over43

[BaalChatzaf]

Ayn Rand was a superb novelist. But so were other people.

So, what are your favorite novels not written by Rand?

For me:

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

Watership Down by Richard Adams

The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky

Lust For Life by Irving Stone

Les Miserables by Victor Hugo

Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte

War With the Newts by Karel Capek

Of female novelists, my favorite is Ursula Laguin.

My two favorites of hers are The Dispossessed and The Left Hand of Darkness.

Her Earthsea trilogy is also excellent.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited June 18, 2009 by BaalChatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

Ayn Rand was a superb novelist. But so were other people.

So, what are your favorite novels not written by Rand?

For me:

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

Watership Down by Richard Adams

The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky

Lust For Life by Irving Stone

Les Miserables by Victor Hugo

Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte

War With the Newts by Karel Capek

Of female novelists, my favorite is Ursula Laguin.

My two favorites of hers are The Dispossessed and The Left Hand of Darkness.

Her Earthsea trilogy is also excellent.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The Dispossessed is pretentious. I like Lathe of Heaven, Left Hand of Darkness and the Earthsea Trilogy.

[kiaer.ts]

Has anyone read and does anyone recommend The Time Traveler's Wife? It has been criticized as "melodramatic," which is always a good sign.

[9thdoctor]

Ted, haven’t heard of it. I missed this thread, here’s a few particular favorites of mine no one mentioned:

Douglas Adams: Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency

Umberto Eco: Foucault’s Pendulum and Baudolino (I prefer both to Name of the Rose)

Most anything by P.G. Wodehouse, particularly the Jeeves stories. Also Ukridge, Psmith, and the Blandings series.

[kiaer.ts]

I just checked Foucault's Pendulum (which I read when it was released in English) from the library last week. The librarian became quite excited, it was her second favorite book, to Baudolino. I actually own that, but haven't gotten past the first few pages on two tries. I have read Name of the Rose four times, twice quite recently. I like it much more than Foucault's Pendulum, which is quite good. I'll have to start on Baudolino next.

I hope someone can still comment on The Time Traveller's Wife.

Theet, have you read A Case of Conscience? A Canticle for Leibowitz? The Sparrow?

Edited October 12, 2009 by Ted Keer

[Rush]

The Catcher in the Rye- J.D Salinger

1984- George Orwell

any S.E. Hinton books

[Michelle]

The Catcher in the Rye- J.D Salinger

any S.E. Hinton books

Have you read Salinger's "Franny and Zooey?"

Oh, and, as regards Hinton, Tex was one of my favorite books when I was young.

[9thdoctor]

Ted:

I think Name of the Rose is great too, but Foucault’s Pendulum and Baudolino have much more humor in them. Next time you try Baudolino, go ahead and skip the first chapter. You’ll like the opening better the second time you read the book, once you’ve developed an ear for Baudolino’s patois. Since you’re rereading FP, let me know if you agree that the first time you read it, it’s a thriller. The second time, it’s a dark comedy. BTW Stanley Kubrick wanted to make a movie of FP, but Eco was disappointed by the Name of the Rose film, and turned him down.

Funny that you mention Canticle for Leibowitz, there as in FP the plot turns on the misreading of an ancient shopping list. Canticle wasn’t really my cup of tea, though certainly worthwile.

[Rush]

The Catcher in the Rye- J.D Salinger

any S.E. Hinton books

Have you read Salinger's "Franny and Zooey?"

Oh, and, as regards Hinton, Tex was one of my favorite books when I was young.

yes i found that one day wondering around aimlessly in borders i loved tex and the outsiders eventhough the move wasone ofthe biggest bastardizations in the history of the book to film genre of movies

[Michelle]

Funny that you mention Canticle for Leibowitz, there as in FP the plot turns on the misreading of an ancient shopping list. Canticle wasn’t really my cup of tea, though certainly worthwile.

The novel is well-written and was innovative for its time, but the lack of any worthwhile characters killed it for me.

If I want to read something vast and epic in scope which sacrifices character development for plot and theme, I'll just go all the way and read one of Olaf Stapledon's future histories.

[kiaer.ts]

If I want to read something vast and epic in scope which sacrifices character development for plot and theme, I'll just go all the way and read one of Olaf Stapledon's future histories.

High praise. Which of his stories do you most recommend, or are they in order?

[kiaer.ts]

Ted:

I think Name of the Rose is great too, but Foucault’s Pendulum and Baudolino have much more humor in them. Next time you try Baudolino, go ahead and skip the first chapter. You’ll like the opening better the second time you read the book, once you’ve developed an ear for Baudolino’s patois. Since you’re rereading FP, let me know if you agree that the first time you read it, it’s a thriller. The second time, it’s a dark comedy. BTW Stanley Kubrick wanted to make a movie of FP, but Eco was disappointed by the Name of the Rose film, and turned him down.

Funny that you mention Canticle for Leibowitz, there as in FP the plot turns on the misreading of an ancient shopping list. Canticle wasn’t really my cup of tea, though certainly worthwile.

Well, yes, I read Pendulum as a blackly humorous thriller the first time. Can't believe that was 20 years ago! I am much better educated now. Haven't started it yet, I'm reading PKD's The Man in the High Castle.

As for Eco and Kubrick, he expected Kubrick to botch it? Had Eco not seen any of his films? I might have gone with somebody else, but except for his silly, divorce-inducing final film (which was still visually pleasing), you couldn't go wrong with Kubrick.

I am curious what it is that people like about Catcher in the Rye? I thought it was pretentious and patronizing. That would be a judgment based on plot and theme. Does it have other redeeming qualities that I might have missed?

[Michelle]

If I want to read something vast and epic in scope which sacrifices character development for plot and theme, I'll just go all the way and read one of Olaf Stapledon's future histories.

High praise. Which of his stories do you most recommend, or are they in order?

Not really. I tend to prefer character-oriented fiction, myself.

He's written several conventional novels, but only Last and First Men and Starmaker, the two forementioned future histories, have stuck. The reason I say they go "all the way" is because they're not stories in the traditional mold: there are no characters. They're literally fictional histories. Think Tolkien's Silmarillion, only way more vast in scope. Last and First Men is about the evolution of the human race over two billion years. Star Maker has something of a narrator, but we learn nothing about him, from what I recall. The point of that book is the evolution of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE.

Stapledon approaches a lot of Big Ideas in the process. Star Maker might be seen as a sequel to Last and First Men, but there is no real connection, so it makes no difference which one is read first. In general, Last and First Men was well-received and is still considered a great classic of science fiction, but Starmaker is considered his masterpiece. This gels with my own memories: Last and First Men was a mixture of boredom and fascination for me, in turns. But Starmaker was dazzling all of the way through.

Both of these book were written in the 1930s and an incalculable number of concepts in modern science fiction can be traced back to these two works. If you only choose one, make it Star Maker: it is THE science fiction novel.

[9thdoctor]

Ted: I experienced Pendulum as a very different novel the second time. See if it has the same effect on you.

Here’s an interview where Eco talks about Kubrick, there’s not much to it though. http://www.hindu.com/2005/10/23/stories/2005102305241000.htm Some of the scenes in Pendulum would have been fantastic in Kubrick’s hands. Particularly the big museum scene at the end.

I read Catcher in the Rye in high school, I remember identifying with it then, but I looked at the first couple pages in a bookstore within the last 5-10 years, and wasn’t interested.

[kiaer.ts]

Thanks, Michelle. Have you read Sirius, the augmented dog story? That could be really good if done well. I read the reviews of the two books you mentioned and of Sirius and Odd John. I do remember having heard of this guy before.

As for Catcher, well, I read that in 10th grade. I came out to some friends in high school that year, so I think that in comparison any of that teen angst stuff would have struck me as drivel. I also read and very much disliked A Seperate Peace that year. The guy dies because of a blood clot from a fall down the steps? I hadn't yet read Rand but I remember thinking what absolute naturalist bullshit.

Oh, and Jim, nice to see a new face here. Please ignore my dislike for Catcher, it's not relevant to your enjoyment of the book.