Ten books that changed the world - The Guardian

[AnotherCat]

Have had a chance to check out some of the so called "authors" that chose the books, and what found is probably not surprising considering the rag The Guardian is.

Turns out that many have political agendas and just chose books that suited their feminist, communist, or environmental activist view of the world.

Explains some of the choices, the obscurity of some, and the omission of perhaps better suited choices based on broad knowledge of literature, science, economics, etc. rather than on ideology.

EDIT: @pwalker8: I certainly agree, at least among the most very important.

[eschwartz]

I suppose it isn't entirely surprising that the list is so inaccurate considering the source.
Harriet Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, George Orwell's 1984, Newton's Principia Mathematica, Euclid's The Elements of Geometry, Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, Plato's The Republic Thomas Paine's Common Sense, all had significant impact on the world.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion could be said to have changed the world...

Harry Potter apparently brought the concept of reading to a whole generation.
Surely it deserves at least honorable mention?


I suppose at a certain point it does become difficult to settle on any specific 10.

[Quote deleted.]

[WT Sharpe]

You may notice a few posts missing. Specifically, one post in particular and three others that quote it. This would be a good time to reflect upon Craig Ferguson's Three Internet Rules:

1. Does this need to be said?
2. Does this need to be said by me?
3. Does this need to be said by me NOW?

Religious discussions are forbidden outside of the opt-in Politics and Religion forum.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Have had a chance to check out some of the so called "authors" that chose the books, and what found is probably not surprising considering the rag The Guardian is.

You may not agree with "The Guardian"'s article (I don't), but it's not a "rag". It's a serious newspaper, not a tabloid. That doesn't mean that one has to agree with everything it publishes, of course.

[issybird]

Generally, I find the Grauniad's book lists interesting and thought-provoking, but this one is just silly. They overreached themselves. Still, it occasioned a discussion here, so not a total loss.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

You may notice a few posts missing. Specifically, one post in particular and three others that quote it. This would be a good time to reflect upon Craig Ferguson's Three Internet Rules:

1. Does this need to be said?
2. Does this need to be said by me?
3. Does this need to be said by me NOW?

Religious discussions are forbidden outside of the opt-in Politics and Religion forum.

Thank you.

While you are at it, can you restore the first half of my post? (I quoted the first quoter, but also made an unrelated observation. )

[crich70]

Originally Posted by TimW

"Scripture" appears to be referring to writings from the three Abrahamic religions, including Islam.

Addendum: The specific writings were the Tanakh, the Christian Greek scriptures, and the Quran.

Wouldn't that just be two books at least on a technical level? I mean the Tanakh and the Christian Bible are alike up to the point where the New Testament begins (or so I understand). Though I would have put Scripture a lot farther up the list than # 10 as well.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by crich70

Though I would have put Scripture a lot farther up the list than # 10 as well.

The list is not ranked. It's simply one influential book chosen by each of ten authors, whose choice you may or may not agree with.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by crich70

Wouldn't that just be two books at least on a technical level? I mean the Tanakh and the Christian Bible are alike up to the point where the New Testament begins (or so I understand). Though I would have put Scripture a lot farther up the list than # 10 as well.

I would understand the Christian Greek scriptures to be referring to the New Testament, thus three.
I could also argue the Old Testament is not really equivalent to the Tanach, for reasons that probably belong in P&R.

Originally Posted by poohbear_nc

.

To flaunt such a grandiose title as "changed the world" .... shouldn't the criteria for inclusion include a 'yes' answer to "If this book had never been written/published/read, would this substantially have changed either the history or present state of the world?"?

Would this make the list worthwhile/important/honest?

Or is this just the Guardian filling in empty space at the end of summer, where there is no real news to publish?

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Have had a chance to check out some of the so called "authors" that chose the books, and what found is probably not surprising considering the rag The Guardian is.

Turns out that many have political agendas and just chose books that suited their feminist, communist, or environmental activist view of the world.

Explains some of the choices, the obscurity of some, and the omission of perhaps better suited choices based on broad knowledge of literature, science, economics, etc. rather than on ideology.

EDIT: @pwalker8: I certainly agree, at least among the most very important.

Originally Posted by issybird

Generally, I find the Grauniad's book lists interesting and thought-provoking, but this one is just silly. They overreached themselves. Still, it occasioned a discussion here, so not a total loss.

"Ten books that changed the world"

That's a near impossible burden to place on any book to begin with. Add to that the fact that this list made definite choices about what changes to the world were important enough to warrant making the list. Then highly questionable selections for the most influential book in that. So I always just looked at the list as a start of a discussion. It would seem that here at least it informed people of some books and/or authors that they may not have known of.


The only truly bad book in my opinion is a book the reader finds boring and does not expand knowledge and/or point of view.


Oh and there is nothing wrong with filling some empty space with something other than more coverage of politics and conflicts.

[TimW]

Originally Posted by crich70

Wouldn't that just be two books at least on a technical level? I mean the Tanakh and the Christian Bible are alike up to the point where the New Testament begins (or so I understand). Though I would have put Scripture a lot farther up the list than # 10 as well.

I had a purely academic response typed but I realized it would still fall under the technical definition of P&R. I guess I will stick with my original post.

[JSWolf]

Talking about scriptures in any way is religious. So any post such as #23 (just picked as an example) belongs in the P&R forum.

[HarryT]

Nope. The word "scripture" simply means "something that's written down". My shopping list is scripture .

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Talking about scriptures in any way is religious. So any post such as #23 (just picked as an example) belongs in the P&R forum.

I think you will find that people mention religious and political books all the time. Recommendations, announcing deals, etc. -- mentioning the fact that something exists is in no way comparable to engaging in divisive religious discussion?

[crich70]

It is a minefield I imagine. When I hear the word scripture I think of the Bible not a general term. As far as that goes though the word Bible comes from the greek and means "the book" or "the books" so you could technically call any collection of works by someone a Bible though outside of the reference volume that TV shows and (perhaps) movies use the term Bible isn't used often. For example back when Star Trek Voyager was still on the air you could send for a copy of the Story Bible for the series. It was a few pages that covered some basics of the characters etc. and the format that script submissions should be in.