Book of the Century?

[Mister Underhill]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dread Horseman
Posts: 661</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Book of the Century?

A couple of corrections, at the risk of getting caught in the crossfire:

(1) The first of Moorcock's Elric stories were published, unless I'm mistaken, in the mid-60's. Stormbringer was published in 1965. Having said that, I agree that he's unlike Tolkien and has more in common, IMO, with pulp writers like Robert E. Howard. I enjoyed the Elric stories (though I must add the caveat that I read them at least fifteen years ago) and have recommended them elsewhere on the Downs. Personally, I wouldn't put him in the same league with Tolkien, but that is, of course, a matter of taste.

(2) Tolkien didn't decide not to publish the Sil with LotR -- he just couldn't convince any publishers to do it (despite impassioned arguments and long letters -- see Letters for more details).

It's clear that everyone has a different yardstick by which they would measure the &quot;best&quot; book of the century (or millenium, or what have you). Several influential works and authors have been mentioned, and cases could be made for many of them as &quot;best&quot; according to some criteria. There are a dozen other authors whose work you might toss into the mix: Hemingway, Faulkner, Steinbeck, and Dostoyevsky, for a few examples.

But forget cultural and literary impact. Forget revolutions of form and style, and inventions of new literary genres. Forget sheer popularity and sales figures. If I was stranded alone on a desert island and could only have one book, what book would I want to have with me? I can't think of anything off the top of my head that would beat out LotR for that slot.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> From Gil:

People think I have read the book, because so many of my opinionated musings seem to have been foreseen by Ayn Rand. I haven't, but it is an obviously great and noted book. I've heard enough about it to perhaps even summarize it! I think its impact has yet to be felt, but that time may be coming.<hr></blockquote>Gilthalion -- I'm startled and amazed by this statement, since Ayn was opposed to so many things that I know you to believe in. I don't want to get too far off track here, but I'll just note that Ayn Rand was an &quot;intransigent atheist&quot; and solidly rejected the notions of &quot;faith&quot; and &quot;altruism&quot;. Check these links for an overview of &quot;Objectivism&quot; (her philosophy) and its main tenents:

http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/io.htmlIntroducing Objectivism</a>
http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/essentials.htmlEssentials of Objectivism</a>

Each is only about a page long. I read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, as well as some of her other non-fiction books, in college. I personally find objectivism to be a rather cold, hollow, and ultimately naïve philosophy. The two works cited, in my opinion, are little more than philosophical treatises masquerading as novels. I will leave it to others to judge what influence her theories on self-interest and laissez-faire capitalist economics have had or will have on modern culture.

</p>