Is it just me or does this link re-direct to what's going on at Netroots this year? I'm very jealous of my friend who got to go this year incidentally. Adam, do you mind updating the link? Thanks so much!
<span>Is it just me or does this link re-direct to what's going on at Netroots this year? I'm very jealous of my friend who got to go this year, incidentally. Adam, do you mind updating the link? Thanks so much!</span>
Wow. I don't know how you can have that list without And the Band Played On by Randy Shilts. And Caro's LBJ trilogy is the best set of biographies I've ever read. I'd also add Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson, All the President's Men by Woodward & Bernstein, and David McCullough's Truman. And no Autobiograpy of Malcolm X? The Guardian's List seems rather mired in an older time.
That list is odd. Define "best" I guess. Most read? Best written as defined by...awards won? Most impactful on society? Whose society? Where is Everybody Poops?!
Beyond that, I wouldn't claim anything on a list of best (as opposed to favorite) books of all time, fiction or non-, but my own favorites list would include, in no particular order, Hiroshima by John Hersey, The Coming Plague by Laurie Garrett, Cities on a Hill by Frances Fitzgerald, and The Antitrust Paradox by Robert Bork (NO POLITICS). And I wouldn't put it on my list, but I think if this list were made on this side of the drink, you'd be sure to get not just the Caro books but also Common Ground by J. Anthony Lukas.
Really, there has to be a date cut-off for that to work. Yes, Gibbon is broadly in the category of "non-fiction," but highly personal narrative history in arch-victorian style isn't top 100 as literature or history. It's on the list because of what it was, historically, not because of what it is, textually.
I am a sucker for campaign narrative books: Cramer's What it Takes, Perlstein's Goldwater book and Nixonland, Fear and Loathing '72.
But my vote goes to Joe McGinniss's "The Miracle of Castel di Sangro," a year's journey with a minor league Italian soccer team. I would also put in a vote for "The Rest is Noise" by Alex Ross in the music category.
Any list like this - unconstrained by era or subject - is largely nonsense, but if I had to pick out three non-fiction books to understand the sweep of the American 20th Century, I'd go with Richard Rhodes' "The Making of the Atomic Bomb"; Marc Reiser's "Cadillac Desert" and Daniel Yergin's "The Prize"
Agreed with the condemnation of the point of such a list. Influential books? OK. Must reads? Not entirely. Here are my recommendations, from the world of entertaining finance: Liars Poker and Barbarians at the Gate.
The Things They Carried is easily one of my favorite three or four books of all time, but it might be a bit of a stretch to call it non-fiction. While it certainly hits the Truth without necessarily being true (what did he call it, story true and happened true?), a lot of the non-fiction parts are in the character of Tim O'Brien as opposed to the real one. Regardless, everyone should certainly read it.
I was surprised to see Hiroshima excluded. I also think that Chomsky should've been included on the list for "Syntactical Structures" and not for Manufacturing Consent. The former had an inestimably broad impact on so many fields, not just psychology and linguistics. Manufacturing Consent did not have that impact. Then again, on what criteria are these the 100 best non-fiction books EVER?
Yeah, I thought about qualifying it...normally I wouldn't lump together essay collections or memoirs with more straight non-fiction like the HeLa book. But I figured since the Guardian list did, I would too.
Totally agree about Henrietta Lacks! That should be mandatory reading for anyone who is going into the life sciences and really, anyone who is interested in where the lines blur between doing science and doing good.
<span>Totally agree about Henrietta Lacks! That should be mandatory reading for anyone who is going into the life sciences and really, anyone who is interested in where the lines blur between doing science and doing good. </span>
Yes, a list that has more Clay Shirky than Churchill doesn't have much credibility, even aside from the left-wing bias that I won't get into because of the no-politics rule. Very disappointing.
Is it just me or does this link re-direct to what's going on at Netroots this year? I'm very jealous of my friend who got to go this year incidentally. Adam, do you mind updating the link? Thanks so much!
ReplyDeleteWow, is that ever the wrong link. NO POLITICS.
ReplyDelete<span>Is it just me or does this link re-direct to what's going on at Netroots this year? I'm very jealous of my friend who got to go this year, incidentally. Adam, do you mind updating the link? Thanks so much!</span>
ReplyDeleteHere's a link to the actual article, but that too is highly political given what's included and what's excluded.
ReplyDeleteBut, really, no Churchill?!?
Wow. I don't know how you can have that list without And the Band Played On by Randy Shilts. And Caro's LBJ trilogy is the best set of biographies I've ever read. I'd also add Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson, All the President's Men by Woodward & Bernstein, and David McCullough's Truman. And no Autobiograpy of Malcolm X? The Guardian's List seems rather mired in an older time.
ReplyDeleteOops. It was late. LINK FIXED.
ReplyDeleteThat list is odd. Define "best" I guess. Most read? Best written as defined by...awards won? Most impactful on society? Whose society? Where is Everybody Poops?!
ReplyDeleteLooks like someone missed the point of The Prince.
ReplyDeleteI hated "Ways of Seeing;" it was a college textbook I didn't need to waste the money on.
ReplyDeleteI just finished reading "Diary of a Young Girl" for the first time, and I'm glad to see it on the list.
Suetonius's Twelve Caesars? No?
ReplyDeleteBeyond that, I wouldn't claim anything on a list of best (as opposed to favorite) books of all time, fiction or non-, but my own favorites list would include, in no particular order, Hiroshima by John Hersey, The Coming Plague by Laurie Garrett, Cities on a Hill by Frances Fitzgerald, and The Antitrust Paradox by Robert Bork (NO POLITICS). And I wouldn't put it on my list, but I think if this list were made on this side of the drink, you'd be sure to get not just the Caro books but also Common Ground by J. Anthony Lukas.
"Books I haven't read,' by "The Guardian."
ReplyDeleteReally, there has to be a date cut-off for that to work. Yes, Gibbon is broadly in the category of "non-fiction," but highly personal narrative history in arch-victorian style isn't top 100 as literature or history. It's on the list because of what it was, historically, not because of what it is, textually.
I am a sucker for campaign narrative books: Cramer's What it Takes, Perlstein's Goldwater book and Nixonland, Fear and Loathing '72.
But my vote goes to Joe McGinniss's "The Miracle of Castel di Sangro," a year's journey with a minor league Italian soccer team. I would also put in a vote for "The Rest is Noise" by Alex Ross in the music category.
Any list like this - unconstrained by era or subject - is largely nonsense, but if I had to pick out three non-fiction books to understand the sweep of the American 20th Century, I'd go with Richard Rhodes' "The Making of the Atomic Bomb"; Marc Reiser's "Cadillac Desert" and Daniel Yergin's "The Prize"
ReplyDeleteYou just reminded me that I've been meaning to read the Atomic Bomb book.
ReplyDeleteAgreed with the condemnation of the point of such a list. Influential books? OK. Must reads? Not entirely. Here are my recommendations, from the world of entertaining finance: Liars Poker and Barbarians at the Gate.
ReplyDeleteRecent-ish non-fiction recommendation: The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. AMAZEBALLS MUST READ BY ALL HUMANS.
ReplyDeleteMy all-time fave non-fiction: The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien.
The Things They Carried is easily one of my favorite three or four books of all time, but it might be a bit of a stretch to call it non-fiction. While it certainly hits the Truth without necessarily being true (what did he call it, story true and happened true?), a lot of the non-fiction parts are in the character of Tim O'Brien as opposed to the real one. Regardless, everyone should certainly read it.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised to see Hiroshima excluded. I also think that Chomsky should've been included on the list for "Syntactical Structures" and not for Manufacturing Consent. The former had an inestimably broad impact on so many fields, not just psychology and linguistics. Manufacturing Consent did not have that impact. Then again, on what criteria are these the 100 best non-fiction books EVER?
ReplyDeleteYeah, I thought about qualifying it...normally I wouldn't lump together essay collections or memoirs with more straight non-fiction like the HeLa book. But I figured since the Guardian list did, I would too.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree about Henrietta Lacks! That should be mandatory reading for anyone who is going into the life sciences and really, anyone who is interested in where the lines blur between doing science and doing good.
ReplyDelete<span>Totally agree about Henrietta Lacks! That should be mandatory reading for anyone who is going into the life sciences and really, anyone who is interested in where the lines blur between doing science and doing good. </span>
ReplyDeleteYes, a list that has more Clay Shirky than Churchill doesn't have much credibility, even aside from the left-wing bias that I won't get into because of the no-politics rule. Very disappointing.
ReplyDelete