Decent holiday reads anyone?

[FourLaneBlue]

Personally I have been catching up on some of the books that made it into the BBC Big Read Top 100. If they are good enough to get on there I thought I should give them a try. How Jeffrey Archer got in there I don't know, maybe I should have a read even though I really don't want to. As for Magician by Raymond E Feist; who voted for that? Even by fantasy standards it is bad. Why read this when someone as good as Terry Pratchett is around?    

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/bigread/top100.shtml

The Secret History by Donna Tartt is an excellent murder story set in a sinister American university among classics students who attempt to be animals, thinking only of pleasure and violence. Holes by Louis Sacher is frankly weird but also compelling, set in a young offenders instution in Texas with a difference; short but superbly written. The book I really recommend though is Perfume by Patrick Suskind which is a great crime novel with twists and turns galore.

The king of crime though is still Raymond Chandler; any Philip Marlowe tale is always difficult if not impossible to put down.

PS- Archangel was better than average but that is about it. Bit like Fatherland; great premise but only average execution. A much better take on Russia is The Russian Interpretator by Michael Frayn; funny and a much lighter read!

[Flopsy]

Just finished reading Terry Pratchetts Monstrous Regiment - great book

also im working through Stephen Kings Dark Tower Stories- They are really really good, gunslinger - volume 1 - is a bit hard going but the second one really gets you hooked

[blue phil]

Back to the top for this one as I'd be interested to learn what anyone can recommend.

While on my recent of conquest of Greece I read "Archangel" by Robert Harris and "Prey" by Michael Crichton.

It doesn't surprise me that you were disapointed somewhat with Harris . I've long suspected that his friends in the newspapers have exagerated his talents . "Fatherland " was only mediocre at the best.

 I was in Malta recently were I re-read both Robert Graves' "I Claudius" (part 1)  , and Trevor-Roper.s "The Last Days of Hitler" - both top notch works and very readable - if you're into historical stuff . Try also Tacitus' "Annals".

[Cheeky Sidders]

Back to the top for this one as I'd be interested to learn what anyone can recommend.

While on my recent of conquest of Greece I read "Archangel" by Robert Harris and "Prey" by Michael Crichton.

It doesn't surprise me that you were disapointed somewhat with Harris . I've long suspected that his friends in the newspapers have exagerated his talents . "Fatherland " was only mediocre at the best.

 I was in Malta recently were I re-read both Robert Graves' "I Claudius" (part 1)  , and Trevor-Roper.s "The Last Days of Hitler" - both top notch works and very readable - if you're into historical stuff . Try also Tacitus' "Annals".

I quite liked Fatherland at the beginning but it seemed to me that he ran out of ideas half way through.  Same could be said of Archangel, but as holiday reads go it was quite good.

As for Tacitus, I've read him many times and particularly liked his "Agricola", the account of Mons Graupius being particularly fine.  If you like your Roman authors, you can't beat old Suetonius for dishing the dirt on the Caesars.  Some of those tales would make your hair curl!

By the way, I also read Rudyard Kipling's "The Man Who Would Be King" not so long ago and although significantly different from the wonderful film, it's still a cracking yarn.

Always intended to read I, Claudius so maybe the time is nigh.

[Radagast]

I picked up my mate's copy of Dark Moon by David Gemmell a couple of days ago and realised after the first chapter that I had to read all of it. Got it through the door via Amazon yesterday and I've hardly put it down since, it's really superb. Anyone familiar with his other works?

[Ozz]

Why not take The Koran? Just dont put it in your hand luggage.

[FourLaneBlue]

Back to the top for this one as I'd be interested to learn what anyone can recommend.

While on my recent of conquest of Greece I read "Archangel" by Robert Harris and "Prey" by Michael Crichton.

It doesn't surprise me that you were disapointed somewhat with Harris . I've long suspected that his friends in the newspapers have exagerated his talents . "Fatherland " was only mediocre at the best.

 I was in Malta recently were I re-read both Robert Graves' "I Claudius" (part 1)  , and Trevor-Roper.s "The Last Days of Hitler" - both top notch works and very readable - if you're into historical stuff . Try also Tacitus' "Annals".

I quite liked Fatherland at the beginning but it seemed to me that he ran out of ideas half way through.  Same could be said of Archangel, but as holiday reads go it was quite good.

As for Tacitus, I've read him many times and particularly liked his "Agricola", the account of Mons Graupius being particularly fine.  If you like your Roman authors, you can't beat old Suetonius for dishing the dirt on the Caesars.  Some of those tales would make your hair curl!

Emperor: The Gates of Rome by Conn Iggulden is excellent and is the first on a series of books following the life of Julius Caesar. Will have to wait for the others to see if it can be classed in same bracket as the two I Claudius novels. It is interesting that so many love the work yet Robert Graves himself described them as 'potboilers'. Apparently they are about as historically accurate as Braveheart although I wouldn't know myself, just realise a fantastic story when I see it.

[blue phil]

Obviously it was an embroidered version of history but the bare facts are that while everyone around him were dying like flies in extremely dodgy circumstances , Claudius was not only overlooked and survived but remained in power for about 12 (?) years . One of the strangest stories in history if you combine the writings of Suetonius , Tacitus , Dio et al .

[roversWASmylife]

I read Niall Quinn`s autobiography, quite good.

[Cheeky Sidders]

Back to the top yet again.

I've just watched th Big Read On BBC2 and the top five books were...

5.  Harry Potter and the Crock Of Sh1te

4.  Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy

3.  His Dark Materials

2.  Pride & Prejudice

1.  Lord Of The Rings

I don't know about you lot but I found this whole Big Read thing both entertaining and infuriating, and I welcome any debate on books.

Of the top 100 I'd read 15 (I think) which I thought was a respectable quota but I'd never heard of some of them.  Of the top five I've read the top 2 and I've got to say I was pleased that they were right up there.

I read P&P in 1997 and I admit I only did so to impress a girl (it worked and I did  :'>  ) but I found it was a surprisingly good read and with some fantastically quotable lines.  In Lizzie Bennet it also has the best female chcaracter I have ever read about.

As for LOTR, where do I begin?  I'd always grown up with the idea it was for geeks and to be completely avoided.  When I was dragged along to the first LOTR film (slightly drunk) I felt my early prejudice was valid and it was indeed for geeks... virginal ones!

"But Sidders, you're wrong!" wailed some of my friends and so me and the then Mrs Sidders rented the video to see if we could be swayed.  We fell asleep before they reached Rivendell.

Last Christmas I was dragged along to the cinema by younger members of the Sidders clan to watch the second film (my Christmas treat to them) and despite my best efforts to have a thoroughly miserable time, I really enjoyed it.  Since then I've read the books, watched the extended versions of the films (far better than the ones released at the cinema) and I now want to watch the third film.

The books are not the greatest works of fiction and most of the characters are very 2D, but the breadth of the story and rich prose make them a winner.  If you haven't read them, I'd give them a nod and say they're worth the effort.

As for the Big Read, well done to the BBC for promoting books and not filling the schedules with the usual Saturday menu of reality TV and shows fronted by shouty presenters.

Incidentally, I've just started reading "Credo" by Melvyn Bragg and I have to say that 200 pages in I'm rather hooked.  In short, it's set in Cumbria and Ireland during the Dark Ages - violence, murder, rape, God and a bit of that love stuff.  Bloody marvellous.

[Debs]

I've just watched the big read too. I've read about half of the books in the top 100. and three of the top 5 and would have gone for Pride and Prejudice out of that list. I never manged to get into Harry Potter so haven't read that goblet book. I also haven't read His Dark Materials but my son consumed the whole trilogy in about 2 weeks when he was 12. Him and his mates all loved it. I had dismissed it as tedious fantasy, but watching the big read programmes has made me want to give it a shot.

I was suprised how many children's books made it into the top 21. My favorite books in the top hundred are probably One Hundred Years in Solitude, Anna Karenia, the Grapes of Wrath and Great Expectations.

I'm reading Rory & Ita by Roddy Doyle at the moment.

[Cheeky Sidders]

It's weird how the Big Read can influence what you want to read.  I'd always avoided Catch 22 as I'd seen the film and hated it.  Now I'm quite keen to read the novel especially as one of my friends rates it as the best book he's ever read and raves about it.  However, I'm only glad that I read P&P before I saw Meera Syall's short film as I thought she made it sound absolutely crap!

I bought His Dark Materials for one of my nieces a couple of years ago (she'd have been about 12) and despite her initial reaction, she loved it.

Of the others in the top 100, I absolutely loved Animal Farm and Captain Corelli's Mandolin as well as Great Expectations which I read in my mid-teens and probably didn't do it justice.  Maybe one to read again.  I've also had The Stand by Stephen King sat unread on my bookshelf for over 12 months now, so maybe that one is next on my reading list.

[Debs]

It's weird how the Big Read can influence what you want to read.  I'd always avoided Catch 22 as I'd seen the film and hated it.  Now I'm quite keen to read the novel especially as one of my friends rates it as the best book he's ever read and raves about it.  

I read Catch 22 when I was about 19 and wasn't impressed at all. I reckon I didn't understand it properly. I am thinking of reading it again following John Sergeant's film. We could do mb 'virtual' reading group - God, I really don't have a life, do I!

[Drummer Boy]

The big read is a pile of ##### - it's a great example of the middle class BBC telling us what is good art and what is bad art as if we don't have valid opinions ourselves without "Auntie Beeb" reassuring us that we do actually have something valid to say.

Take Dickens (please, somebody, please) one page of pious waffle followed by a page of equally pious story - absolutely clueless on what he is supposedly writing about - utterly overrated unless you happen to be one of those people who think we should all subsidise the theatre and arts for the already privileged few in which case you probably think he has genuine insight - you probably deserve each other.

Why not read whatever the hell interests you - because that is the definition of good literature - and not whatever some middle class establishment like the BBC tells you SHOULD interest you? The greatest gift given by this country to the world is literature and don't let anybody (especially bloody arts graduates from Guardian-reading backgrounds who think they are working class and therefore entitles them to tell the rest of the country what is and is not good literature)

I'm reasonably read (though not according to the BBC mantra) and would never venture to tell you what to read other than what tickles your fancy. However, literature that  sticks in my mind and that I would recommend you have a dip into would include:

"The ragged-trousered philanthropists" - reality bites into the sentimentalists concept of working life

"Catch 22"

"Tin Drum" - bizarre yet with a story to tell

"Dracula" - thoroughly enjoyable and compelling

I don't know about you but I also enjoy reading Iain Banks, Bill Bryson, George Orwell and others because they assume the reader has thoughts of their own - unlike the BBC, who seem to have set themselves up as our literary guardians without consulting us beforehand!!!

There you go, look at the chips on my shoulder I hear you cry. Bloody proud of them I am as well!

[Cheeky Sidders]

Er... the Big Read top 100 was voted for by the public and wasn't an approved reading list supplied by the BBC.  I think the general idea was to open up a general debate about literature and inspire people to read rather than watch crap TV.  Given that borrowing from libraries has risen dramatically, booshops are reporting increased profits and the like of you and I are having this discussion all indicate that it has been a success.

However, if you mean the likes of Andrew Davies et al spouting crap, then I'd be tempted to agree with some of what you said.  But your analysis (for want of a better word) of Dickens is utterly laughable.

[Debs]

"The ragged-trousered philanthropists" - reality bites into the sentimentalists concept of working life

"Catch 22"

"Tin Drum" - bizarre yet with a story to tell

"Dracula" - thoroughly enjoyable and compelling

I don't know about you but I also enjoy reading Iain Banks, Bill Bryson, George Orwell and others because they assume the reader has thoughts of their own - unlike the BBC, who seem to have set themselves up as our literary guardians without consulting us beforehand!!!

There you go, look at the chips on my shoulder I hear you cry. Bloody proud of them I am as well!

errm ... the Ragged Trousered Philanthropist, Catch 22, Iain Banks and George Orwell all made it into the big read list!

[Drummer Boy]

The Big read was voted for by a selection of the public who were sufficiently interested but who do not consititute a majority of the reading public in this country.

Also, why is it that a panel have been appointed to select the best? And look at who is on that panel!! What relevance do they have to you and I? Hey, but they get a nice little revenue stream from talking about this kind of stuff telling the rest of us what is and is not good literature.

I accept your point that at least it is being discussed and has served as a catalyst and that there has been much spouting of crap that has got my goat (in case you hadn't noticed); however, I refute that my assessment of Dickens is laughable - the guy has been revered for writing what is largely tosh IMO in a style that is contemporary but has not aged well (unlike Shakespeare, for example). Also, his analysis of working conditions at the time was, at best, patronising.

[Debs]

Also, why is it that a panel have been appointed to select the best? And look at who is on that panel!! What relevance do they have to you and I? Hey, but they get a nice little revenue stream from talking about this kind of stuff telling the rest of us what is and is not good literature.

I must have completely missed the point. I thought the top five were voted for by the public tonight.

[Cheeky Sidders]

You haven't missed the point at all, Drummer Boy has.  All the books were selected and voted for by the public.  Moreover, the poll wasn;t to find the best book, but "the most loved".  If people chose not to vote (as I didn't) and they were displeased with the result then that's tough.

[Drummer Boy]

Fair point - maybe I missed the point: The public voted for what was put in front of them, by their literary guardians at the beeb. Regardless, the shortlist bears little resemblance to what most people outside the circles I describe actually read.

[Cheeky Sidders]

FFS!  The books were selected by the public!  A panel discussed them!  That's it!

[Drummer Boy]

They were voted for by the beeb-watching  public (a minority, in case you hadn't noticed). A shortlist was selected after subsequent discussion by a panel presented to the beeb-watching public as suitably wise (and superior) - and then the public who were actually left involved actually voted. I don't mind a vote like this, but resent the implication that it is a reflection of the country at large.

[Morph]

Don't think that the middle class intelligencia at the BBC would have chosen Harry Potter, LOTR, His Dark Materials or Hitchhiker's Guide as four of the top five books in the history of the English language Drummer Boy. If the list seemed predictable (and did anyone really doubt that Lord of the Rings would win?) it was because of the fact that it was down to a popular vote.

[Morph]

They were voted for by the beeb-watching  public (a minority, in case you hadn't noticed). A shortlist was selected after subsequent discussion by a panel presented to the beeb-watching public as suitably wise (and superior) - and then the public who were actually left involved actually voted. I don't mind a vote like this, but resent the implication that it is a reflection of the country at large.

The beeb watching public an elitist minority? Why? On account of the fact that it's all bloody Chekhov (no, not that one) and Dostoyevsky on BBC1 these days? This is the channel that inflicts Eastenders on us FFS! Who else do you think is going to vote for a programme about literature broadcast on the BBC? The non-BBC viewing public perhaps?

[Drummer Boy]

Don't think that the middle class intelligencia at the BBC would have chosen Harry Potter, LOTR, His Dark Materials or Hitchhiker's Guide as four of the top five books in the history of the English language Drummer Boy. If the list seemed predictable (and did anyone really doubt that Lord of the Rings would win?) it was because of the fact that it was down to a popular vote.

Problem is, Morph, that the titles to which you refer are the new middle-class intelligentsia reference points that are intended to  show just how smart they are because they get the point to what are actually pointless stories.

In addition, we can all be smart at this level; however, the point I am trying to make (badly) is that, whilst the pen is always mightier than the sword, the titles to which you refer are simply anaesthetic - genuine literature changes the world, or the way we think about it - it doesn't reinforce the status quo. Tolkein, whilst a good story-teller, does nothing other than allow people to pretend to think they are clever because they can follow a plot that is basically a fairy tale they read as a child and therefore makes them feel both secure (childhood associations) and smart at the same time. It doesn't change the world and presents the pen as an anaesthetic rather than sword - it is this latter point that makes it worthy of nothing as it changes nothing.