I linked over to the chat and scrolled through the first 40 minutes. I slogged through three quarters of an abridged version of War and Peace before I had been ground to a nub. Modern Library published a readers top 100 and four of the top ten titles were Rand and three were Hubbard- just awful. I’m surprised Old Man in the Sea doesn’t get more play, I loved The Sun Also Rises but I thought The Old Man was better. Beloved is amazing, the Invisible Man was fine, but I would have to disagree, the single serve coffee makers are more than adequate when you’re in desperate need of a cup.
It appears the scientologists were stuffing the Modern Library ballot boxes. I also have to fault the board for neglecting to include the Origin of Species in their top 100 nonfiction. There were certainly equally boring works of lesser influence included.
Keith-late next week for the prospects? My APBA league draft is 2/3. Please don’t slip the deadline. After winning the league championship, I rely upon your insight to accelerate my rebuilding.
Paul: I think those ML lists were just 20th century – at least the fiction 100 was. I thought the omission of Beloved from their list – in fact, of Toni Morrison entirely – was complete inanity, on the voted-for-Rice-not-Raines or voted-for-Morris-not-Blyleven level. Look, I liked Ragtime, but how on earth does that make the list over Beloved?
Upon second examination, you are correct. Admittedly, the sample is small at approximately 200,000 voters, but I’m discouraged that the top of the list includes Ayn Rand and pulp fiction.
Personally, I’m not a huge fan of the readability of existential realism, but just for the immense artistry of its composition, Beloved should have been included. At least the readers got that one right.
Cmon – like her or hate her, Rand had an influence that we’re feeling to this day. I read Rand at 15 (living in Ethiopia at the time), and it blew my mind – I think to a great extent it shaped a lot of what I believe. I read it at 21 with a more jaundiced eye, and I’m far more accepting of the criticism (the paper-thin characters at times, the uber-mensch concept) – it is very much more of a philosophy text than a novel per se and the writing is certainly painful at times, but The Fountainhead to me is one of the books of the 21st century.
Course, my other favorite book of all time is The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, so it shows you what I know.
I’m the one who brought up W&P and Rand in the chat yesterday. A couple of comments about both. Keith you said that Anna Karenina was tough to get through, but the books are pretty different. The amazing scope and visual detail that Tolstoy puts into W&P is breathtaking. Add that to the philosophy on war, peace, life, death, and family that he weaves into the story only makes me admire it more. Yes, it is long, but I don’t necessarily see that as a bad thing. As long as I can keep turning pages anxiously, it could be 3000 pages long. I took W&P when I backpacked through Europe and it served me extremely well. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
As far as Rand goes, I think she is batshit insane, and it is true that her characters are more archetypal and not developed far enough, but be that as it may, her novels have an amazing scope as well, and even though I despise her philosophy, I absolutely respect her ability to present it so coherently and interestingly. Also, as an architecture buff, The Fountainhead really interested me on more than one level. Atlas Shrugged is good, too, but it more philosophically focused, and longer. The Fountainhead is a much better novel.
But Keith, agreed on Crime & Punishment and Great Gatsby. Growing up on LI, I loved Gatsby for the setting, but reading it again after I moved to Boston, it really is the true American novel.
Keith, what are your thoughts on Lolita? I thought the prose was outstanding, and I really enjoyed the first third of it, but it lost me after that. What was even going on? It became unbearably boring, in my opinion. Still, he had an amazing grasp of the English language.
Keith, thanks for a great, as always, chat yesterday. Would you be kind enough to elaborate on your answer to my question regarding Moustakas and your top 10 list from the 2007 draft? More often than not you and Jim Callis are close in your opinions on prospects, but with Moustakas there is a HUGE difference, as you don’t have him in top 10 from 2007 draft and Jim (if I remember correctly) ranks him top 5 overall in the BA’s Prospect Handbook…
Thanks!! 🙂
Vlad: I rated Moustakas 11th or 12th going into the draft, and I think it’s too early to change that view, since he’s got just 41 pro at bats under his belt. I like Moustakas, but he’s due for a position switch, and if he’s a 3b, for instance, I like Dominguez’ bat and glove (the latter of which is a known quantity, and is outstanding) better than Moustakas’.
Also, bear in mind that my process is different from BA’s. They survey scouts and scouting directors, some who are likely to be swayed by the fact that Moustakas went 2nd overall. I see prospects myself, with some help in 2007 from some freelance scouts who reported to me, and what you read from me reflects those independent scouting reports, not third-party opinions. So we’re going to have different results.
Keith,
thank you for the detailed answer (and sorry for the delayed response). 🙂
Btw, I remember you mentioned in one of your Four-letter chats that you were scouting in Philly in the fall – did I miss a post about Philly eats or you did not write one?
Just curious. 🙂
Is there a link to that chat? The 4 letter is not showing it on the home page yet. Thanks!
Brian – click on the link in my post, which should take you right there.
I linked over to the chat and scrolled through the first 40 minutes. I slogged through three quarters of an abridged version of War and Peace before I had been ground to a nub. Modern Library published a readers top 100 and four of the top ten titles were Rand and three were Hubbard- just awful. I’m surprised Old Man in the Sea doesn’t get more play, I loved The Sun Also Rises but I thought The Old Man was better. Beloved is amazing, the Invisible Man was fine, but I would have to disagree, the single serve coffee makers are more than adequate when you’re in desperate need of a cup.
…and the Sea, as far as I recall he was never in it though maybe to his ankles as he pulled the skiff ashore.
Thanks Keith, I did not notice the hyperlink!
It appears the scientologists were stuffing the Modern Library ballot boxes. I also have to fault the board for neglecting to include the Origin of Species in their top 100 nonfiction. There were certainly equally boring works of lesser influence included.
Keith-late next week for the prospects? My APBA league draft is 2/3. Please don’t slip the deadline. After winning the league championship, I rely upon your insight to accelerate my rebuilding.
Dwight: 1/31 or 2/1 for the final list.
Paul: I think those ML lists were just 20th century – at least the fiction 100 was. I thought the omission of Beloved from their list – in fact, of Toni Morrison entirely – was complete inanity, on the voted-for-Rice-not-Raines or voted-for-Morris-not-Blyleven level. Look, I liked Ragtime, but how on earth does that make the list over Beloved?
Upon second examination, you are correct. Admittedly, the sample is small at approximately 200,000 voters, but I’m discouraged that the top of the list includes Ayn Rand and pulp fiction.
Personally, I’m not a huge fan of the readability of existential realism, but just for the immense artistry of its composition, Beloved should have been included. At least the readers got that one right.
Cmon – like her or hate her, Rand had an influence that we’re feeling to this day. I read Rand at 15 (living in Ethiopia at the time), and it blew my mind – I think to a great extent it shaped a lot of what I believe. I read it at 21 with a more jaundiced eye, and I’m far more accepting of the criticism (the paper-thin characters at times, the uber-mensch concept) – it is very much more of a philosophy text than a novel per se and the writing is certainly painful at times, but The Fountainhead to me is one of the books of the 21st century.
Course, my other favorite book of all time is The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, so it shows you what I know.
I’m the one who brought up W&P and Rand in the chat yesterday. A couple of comments about both. Keith you said that Anna Karenina was tough to get through, but the books are pretty different. The amazing scope and visual detail that Tolstoy puts into W&P is breathtaking. Add that to the philosophy on war, peace, life, death, and family that he weaves into the story only makes me admire it more. Yes, it is long, but I don’t necessarily see that as a bad thing. As long as I can keep turning pages anxiously, it could be 3000 pages long. I took W&P when I backpacked through Europe and it served me extremely well. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
As far as Rand goes, I think she is batshit insane, and it is true that her characters are more archetypal and not developed far enough, but be that as it may, her novels have an amazing scope as well, and even though I despise her philosophy, I absolutely respect her ability to present it so coherently and interestingly. Also, as an architecture buff, The Fountainhead really interested me on more than one level. Atlas Shrugged is good, too, but it more philosophically focused, and longer. The Fountainhead is a much better novel.
But Keith, agreed on Crime & Punishment and Great Gatsby. Growing up on LI, I loved Gatsby for the setting, but reading it again after I moved to Boston, it really is the true American novel.
I still say the best Russian novel is Dr. Zhivago by Boris Pasternak. Great read.
Keith, what are your thoughts on Lolita? I thought the prose was outstanding, and I really enjoyed the first third of it, but it lost me after that. What was even going on? It became unbearably boring, in my opinion. Still, he had an amazing grasp of the English language.
Keith, thanks for a great, as always, chat yesterday. Would you be kind enough to elaborate on your answer to my question regarding Moustakas and your top 10 list from the 2007 draft? More often than not you and Jim Callis are close in your opinions on prospects, but with Moustakas there is a HUGE difference, as you don’t have him in top 10 from 2007 draft and Jim (if I remember correctly) ranks him top 5 overall in the BA’s Prospect Handbook…
Thanks!! 🙂
Vlad: I rated Moustakas 11th or 12th going into the draft, and I think it’s too early to change that view, since he’s got just 41 pro at bats under his belt. I like Moustakas, but he’s due for a position switch, and if he’s a 3b, for instance, I like Dominguez’ bat and glove (the latter of which is a known quantity, and is outstanding) better than Moustakas’.
Also, bear in mind that my process is different from BA’s. They survey scouts and scouting directors, some who are likely to be swayed by the fact that Moustakas went 2nd overall. I see prospects myself, with some help in 2007 from some freelance scouts who reported to me, and what you read from me reflects those independent scouting reports, not third-party opinions. So we’re going to have different results.
Keith,
thank you for the detailed answer (and sorry for the delayed response). 🙂
Btw, I remember you mentioned in one of your Four-letter chats that you were scouting in Philly in the fall – did I miss a post about Philly eats or you did not write one?
Just curious. 🙂