Harris Poll - America's Favourite book...

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Have they actually read it? Or do they just think they have to say that is the number one book?

Hmmm...perhaps you're right -- it is not necessary just to read it. Considering the King James version's great girth, it works admirably around the house...as a door stop, propping up a broken table or as an objet d'art (preferrably with an embossed leather cover and gilded pages). With so many uses, it is the duct tape of the literary world...it certainly has been misquoted and taken out of context more than any other book (with the possible exception of the Koran or LOTR).

[Groin Redbeard]

What are you all complaining about? I couldn't think of two better books to outdo the Lord of the Rings. The Bible is an awsome book, if one takes the time to read it, it has all the answers. The greatest lessons that anyone could learn is all wrapped up in that book.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

What are you all complaining about? I couldn't think of two better books to outdo the Lord of the Rings. The Bible is an awsome book, if one takes the time to read it, it has all the answers. The greatest lessons that anyone could learn is all wrapped up in that book.

I might take issue regarding Gone With the Wind (LOTR deserves #2 spot), but otherwise I agree.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

What are you all complaining about? I couldn't think of two better books to outdo the Lord of the Rings.

Oh, I wasn't irritated that LOTR came in third; in fact, LOTR wouldn't necessarily come in third on my own personal favorite list. Rather, I was bemoaning the list in general (I'm rather surprised that Ayn Rand and Harper Lee managed to muscle in against such literary heavyweights as Dan Brown, Stephen King and Harry Potter). So much for Steinbeck, Dickens, Hugo and other such second-rate hacks.

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

he Bible is an awsome book, if one takes the time to read it, it has all the answers. The greatest lessons that anyone could learn is all wrapped up in that book.

Yes, a good book, but not the only book (to paraphrase the movie Inherit the Wind). But if we are talking strictly from a literary standpoint (and I realize that the question that was asked was rather vague in that regard), then I would have to say the Bible is inconsistent. There are sections of unsurpassed brilliance (Psalms, the book of Job and Revelations come to mind), but if one slogs through many of the Books (Chronicles, Nehemiah, Sirach, even Genesis) one gets an ad nauseum reguritation of who begot whom and what battles were fought and what tribe was on the outs with its neighbors -- it is not very interesting or even germane to saving one's soul (if one finds that necessary).

Then there is the question of which Bible were these people voting for? The King James Bible certainly is the standard bearer for biblical excellence (although the Wycliffe version is handsomely worded), but the revised Catholic version (with thoroughly modernized verbiage) bears little resemblance to the King James, and the Jewish voter certainly would only choose the Torah (without, of course, any mention of the New Testament). Then there are the Apocrypha (books lacking canonicity among certain Christian faiths) which do not appear in every bible currently.

I'm not interested in any religious furor, or debating the precepts of any religion (as that tends to get ugly), I am speaking stictly of the Bible as literature.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Oh, I wasn't irritated that LOTR came in third; in fact, LOTR wouldn't necessarily come in third on my own personal favorite list. Rather, I was bemoaning the list in general (I'm rather surprised that Ayn Rand and Harper Lee managed to muscle in against such literary heavyweights as Dan Brown, Stephen King and Harry Potter). So much for Steinbeck, Dickens, Hugo and other such second-rate hacks.

Well, I am afraid that the poll - and not that I fancy polls anyway, or trust them much, but I don't know the agenture that made it, so I can't judge - shows exactly the "commercially succesful" stuff (however nasty this is to be said of LotR, but after the movies, this is just normal). And I think I read somewhere here recently that LotR is among the books most lied about - i.e. people say they have read it when they in fact didn't. Not thinking that they'd lie about it in the poll, but anyway, it says something of the overall views (and maybe similar things may apply for even the Bible or others, like Dan Brown).

Yes, a good book, but not the only book (to paraphrase the movie Inherit the Wind). But if we are talking strictly from a literary standpoint (and I realize that the question that was asked was rather vague in that regard), then I would have to say the Bible is inconsistent.

The other things is actually that it is not, in fact, one book, but many books from many different authors put together; so if we were too picky, it should be maybe even placed separately (but since it is already one book, it won't be much helpful to separate it, I think, quite the opposite. Also, there is the question whether even the people who wrote it read all of it). And again: not sure what the American translations look like (or if they had King James in mind), but I daresay at least the Old Testament cannot reach its heights as a work of literature in translations - it's totally different in the original (all the literary techniques, like playing with words, alliteration etc.).

[THE Ka]

I can see The Stand being on the list, since if to find out someone I've met has read anything over the past fifteen years, for some reason its usually mentioned. Which is odd (its sheer size aside), but the way everything twist and winds this way and that with really, no direction, and how some of the characters are stubborn to no end (you end up wishing you could strangle them for being so niave and more, after putting you through nearly 1,000 pages of it). Umph.

I tried reading Mr. King's magnum opus all the way through when I was younger, but after 3/4ths of the way through it never stuck with interest. Then I found The Hobbit again, and restored to a pleasant mood.

What I'm really curious about though, considering the vast amount of book sales over the years of The Hobbit (which, commercially should make it apparent on such a poll), how it isn't mentioned at all. Unless, as with most polls, something obvious is always amiss, or how the poll was comprised wasn't big enough in demographics of diversified interest, etc.

Originally Posted by Legate

in translations - it's totally different in the original (all the literary techniques, like playing with words, alliteration etc.).

Well, even the original is at the mercy of speculation, since it was taken from a wholly different culture and language (An example, say, you can find going through art history. How with early christian to even late medieval periods Moses is depicted literally, with horns. No, not a social or theological stigma, simple mistranslation and confusion from originals. Makes for much livelier and interesting art though!!!).
Well, no more on this, the overall development of a text vs. how it is culturally used is a study in itself which would take too long to even think about here.

I dunno, I'm at least glad that people are still reading books (despite what, no surprise, other polls may say of the decline of reading them in the US), and more so Tolkien!

~ Meandering Ka

[Finduilas]

When do they do polls like this? Who actually do they send these to?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by THE Ka

What I'm really curious about though, considering the vast amount of book sales over the years of The Hobbit (which, commercially should make it apparent on such a poll), how it isn't mentioned at all. Unless, as with most polls, something obvious is always amiss, or how the poll was comprised wasn't big enough in demographics of diversified interest, etc.

Depends; but I think it may be that people - even from this sample (but cf. what I think about polls as I said above) - and even those of them who read LotR AND the Hobbit would place LotR over the Hobbit. You know, I can't help to start thinking what most of the Downers would write had we been asked to write one book which is our favourite. I dare to assume that the majority of people would write LotR, and not the Hobbit. Even myself, possibly. Simply when considering it all, you know... well, think for yourself, I don't know whether you'd pick LotR or TH.

Well, even the original is at the mercy of speculation, since it was taken from a wholly different culture and language (An example, say, you can find going through art history. How with early christian to even late medieval periods Moses is depicted literally, with horns. No, not a social or theological stigma, simple mistranslation and confusion from originals. Makes for much livelier and interesting art though!!!).

Well surely. There are lots of things still which can't be determined precisely enough (although of course most of the main things are clear enough - I am now not talking of interpretation, which is a chapter for itself and has nothing to do with this). However, what I was talking about was the very rich "arsenal" of the literary work in the original language, and that the translations, at least speaking of the indo-european (or similar) languages cannot reflect easily these minor things in the original text.

And just as a note for your interest, the horn thing can still be argued. Because actually, horns were taken by many cultures simply as an attribute of divine power. So there are scholars even today speculating that the horns may be there rightfully after all.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

And just as a note for your interest, the horn thing can still be argued. Because actually, horns were taken by many cultures simply as an attribute of divine power. So there are scholars even today speculating that the horns may be there rightfully after all.

Actually, Moses was not horned. This comes from a mistranslation by Jerome in the Latin Vulgate Bible. Jerome took the Hebraic word Qaran and used it in one of its interpretations, the noun 'horn' ('Qui videbant faciem Moses esse cornutam'), but there is another derivation meaning 'to emit light' or 'shed rays' (horns of light radiating from his face, aka a halo). Qaran is used conjuctively with the phrase 'the skin of his face' (not horns on top of his head). Thus, after coming down from Mount Sinai and his meeting with Yahweh, his face was literally glowing -- so much so that he had to wear a veil so as not to frighten his people.

The Apostle Paul, in his Second Letter to the Corinthians, is quite clear about the proper definition being Moses' face shone:

And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished...

Michelangelo, steeped in esoteric Christian learning from his long stay at the scholarly court of Lorenzo De Medici, would naturally be aware of Jerome's vulgate translation of Exodus, and incorporated it in his monumental sculpture.



P.S. Please note the remarkable resemblance Moses has with Charlton Heston.