Hamlet - first and foremost. If there is a single work in literature that one should read to be "cultured" it is Hamlet.
Snow by Orhan Pamuk - which, in my opinion, is one of the finest books of the decade. It is a beautiful and tragic composition.
Gilead by Marilynn Robinson...the book won here a Pulitzer Prize...it's a gorgeous book.
There is nothing by Richard Russo, and no body has mentioned Richard Russo, which is a shame. Empire Falls, especially, which also won a Pulitzer.
-Sure, the Pulitzer certainly isn't a keynote, objective look at "literary merit" but it does *help*
Where the hell are:
-Alice In Wonderland
-Chronicles of Narnia
-Dune
-Ender's Game
-His Dark Materials
-Kite Runner
-The Prince
-The Republic
I could go on and on. I'm sure there are lots of books on the list that don't deserve to be there, also?
I certainly don't see any sort of objectivity. I would rank Ulysses near the top of the list...it's one of the finest novels ever written. How is this list organized? What qualifications were used in selection and placement? The author of said book needs to examine literature a little more. Or maybe I just don't understand "good books."
I would like to suggest Elephant, directed by Gus Van Sant. It is a chilling, crippling film about a school shooting (paying homage to the Columbine massacre) and is one of the most disturbing but artistically beautiful films I have ever seen. It is an underground film set in Portland, Oregon. There are no professional actors (actually, the students in the film were actual students in Portland) and the script is mostly improvised. On the surface, it is a brutal, grotesque film which shows nothing more than the heartless slaughter of people. I actually felt rather disgusted with myself the first time I watched it. But, it made me think about things beyond just the surface of the film. For one, Van Sant does not criticize the characters who are supposed to represent Dylan and Eric. Instead, Van Sant remains neutral, suggesting that they were not "bad" "evil" people but merely *did* something which is violent and certainly not sanctioned by society. Van Sant seemingly argues that there is no inherent evil, but also no inherent "good" and "divinity" only neutrality, and the ideology of *doing* good or *doing* bad (if this makes sense) The film's bleakness also emphasizes various conflicts, particularly in the struggle with life and death. There's a stark contrast between students who panic, and students who seemingly accept their fates. *When the gunman walk into the library there is no panic until post-shooting, and one of the characters takes a picture.* It is as if Van Sant suggests that we must come to terms with death, because sooner or later it will happen. The film is, therefore, remarkably philosophical, especially in the idea of existentialism versus fatalism. How do we act, both in times of crisis and in times of calm?
The film is also artistically beautiful, but I don't want to discuss all the aspects with it. Some people do find the film "boring" which is certainly understandable. It is rough and jagged, gruesome and depressing, but beautiful in its own right.
Lots of lovely movies. :) What do you think of State of Play?
Hamlet - first and foremost. If there is a single work in literature that one should read to be "cultured" it is Hamlet.
Snow by Orhan Pamuk - which, in my opinion, is one of the finest books of the decade. It is a beautiful and tragic composition.
Gilead by Marilynn Robinson...the book won here a Pulitzer Prize...it's a gorgeous book.
There is nothing by Richard Russo, and no body has mentioned Richard Russo, which is a shame. Empire Falls, especially, which also won a Pulitzer.
-Sure, the Pulitzer certainly isn't a keynote, objective look at "literary merit" but it does *help*
Where the hell are:
-Alice In Wonderland
-Chronicles of Narnia
-Dune
-Ender's Game
-His Dark Materials
-Kite Runner
-The Prince
-The Republic
I could go on and on. I'm sure there are lots of books on the list that don't deserve to be there, also?
I certainly don't see any sort of objectivity. I would rank Ulysses near the top of the list...it's one of the finest novels ever written. How is this list organized? What qualifications were used in selection and placement? The author of said book needs to examine literature a little more. Or maybe I just don't understand "good books."
I would like to suggest Elephant, directed by Gus Van Sant. It is a chilling, crippling film about a school shooting (paying homage to the Columbine massacre) and is one of the most disturbing but artistically beautiful films I have ever seen. It is an underground film set in Portland, Oregon. There are no professional actors (actually, the students in the film were actual students in Portland) and the script is mostly improvised. On the surface, it is a brutal, grotesque film which shows nothing more than the heartless slaughter of people. I actually felt rather disgusted with myself the first time I watched it. But, it made me think about things beyond just the surface of the film. For one, Van Sant does not criticize the characters who are supposed to represent Dylan and Eric. Instead, Van Sant remains neutral, suggesting that they were not "bad" "evil" people but merely *did* something which is violent and certainly not sanctioned by society. Van Sant seemingly argues that there is no inherent evil, but also no inherent "good" and "divinity" only neutrality, and the ideology of *doing* good or *doing* bad (if this makes sense) The film's bleakness also emphasizes various conflicts, particularly in the struggle with life and death. There's a stark contrast between students who panic, and students who seemingly accept their fates. *When the gunman walk into the library there is no panic until post-shooting, and one of the characters takes a picture.* It is as if Van Sant suggests that we must come to terms with death, because sooner or later it will happen. The film is, therefore, remarkably philosophical, especially in the idea of existentialism versus fatalism. How do we act, both in times of crisis and in times of calm?
The film is also artistically beautiful, but I don't want to discuss all the aspects with it. Some people do find the film "boring" which is certainly understandable. It is rough and jagged, gruesome and depressing, but beautiful in its own right.