Top 100 Books to Read

[Napoleon Ier]

Nap, here are my thoughts on your courses for what its worth:

1)Economics
2)Eng. Lit
3) History or Philosophy.

In other words, what i did -apart from Lit. I would ditch the classics in favour of philosophy. They said that when i took philosophy, and its true, its not highly favoured by universities. But better to get an "A" in philosophy than a "B" in classics.
I say that cos you seem interested in philosophy , and slightly bored by Classics. The more interested you are, the better your grade will be.

History (good call) and Maths are my definites, with Further Maths as a minor course. I can't do economics, coz it's not offered.

Then...my classics teacher said he wanted me doing Greek in school and was good enough to do Latin off-syllabus, so that's why I'm doing those. English Literature, well, I guess it's really well taught, and I can see philosophy AS/A-2 being a travesty (in terms of the course).

I guess I have to be really careful to do only respected A-Levels if I also want to go to somewhere as decent as Cambridge, what with all the competition from the Chinkies etc...

And, to toot my own horn, Cambridge uni didn't seem to mind too much

What can I say? I'm impressed.

[suggs]

on a train of thought, "Pride and Prejudice" is fucking funny. (Austen, J.)

[btownmeggy]

EDIT: meggy fastposted me but I posted anyway -- I think she said what I was trying to say anyway.

Not really.

[Napoleon Ier]

To be a chauvinist twat, altho i hope no more than usual, the old cliche about women being more emotional does have validity here.
Women are just better at exploring the emotional...er...stuff in books. You see, i cant even explain it. You know what i mean.

Making most novelists metrosexual or outright gay pansies?

[btownmeggy]

on a train of thought, "Pride and Prejudice" is fucking funny. (Austen, J.)

I just read it for the first time since Jr. High a couple of months ago.

I thought it was FANTASTIC, one of the best I've read in a long time. Definitely funny. I mean that in a very positive, loving sense, even if you didn't.

[suggs]

Christ, you're good at Maths too? You've out done me by some way, Nap

Honesty forces me to admit that i dropped out of Camrtidge, due to being permanently drunk and stoned for 2 years. I wouldnt reccomend that. But I would HIGHLY reccommend Queens' College, its stunning, very friendly, and academically one of the best.

[suggs]

on a train of thought, "Pride and Prejudice" is fucking funny. (Austen, J.)

I just read it for the first time since Jr. High a couple of months ago.

I thought it was FANTASTIC, one of the best I've read in a long time. Definitely funny. I mean that in a very positive, loving sense, even if you didn't.

Ah, Megs, i'm not ALWAYS a cynical twat (just 90%)
That was precisely how i meant. A girl firend made me read it, i thought it would be a pile of arse, and was amazed to find it was genius, through and through, and much, much funnier than i thought it would be. Lizzie Bennett is a great character.

[Napoleon Ier]

It's true for mes cousins anglais aussi. Et francais et espagnol et chinois and whoever the f*ck is a lit critic. It's a field COMPLETELY DOMINATED by women (literary criticism; not writing, obviously, not yet).

I suppose the female mind is better naturally equipped with many tools necessary for studying literature. What are your thought on the matter?

My feelings are on the fence regarding gender- or sex-specific mental talents.

But, here's an idea I just had:

Literary criticism has changed VASTLY since the 1970s, it's practically a whole new approach to knowledge. Perhaps, historically shuttered out of traditional fields (even, really, in the social sciences and humanities: think Economics, Philosophy), women have been able to find a place in this new realm, shaping it into a system (which all of academia is) that is favorable to our gender.

So it's a question of the way people expect criticism to work as opposed to an actual innate incompatibility of the male psyche to apply itself to studying literature?

I can see that. Suggs emotional point does cary a lotof validity, but at the same time, I don't really think that covers it all. Men must be emotional as well, in different ways. Whilst girls sitting a paper on (for example) LOTF would probably discuss the book in the context of emotions of the boys on the island, whilst I certainly (within our class) see a tendancy for the more masculine to offer up points regarding the nature of evil, the power struggle, the rediscovery of atavist and savage survival instincts etc...

[suggs]

The Murder of Roger Ackroyd,- A. Christie.

[Napoleon Ier]

Christ, you're good at Maths too? You've out done me by some way, Nap

Honesty forces me to admit that i dropped out of Camrtidge, due to being permanently drunk and stoned for 2 years. I wouldnt reccomend that. But I would HIGHLY reccommend Queens' College, its stunning, very friendly, and academically one of the best.

If I can get in to Oxbridge. Which given my predicted GCSEs have a few too many niggly A grades in them, isn't looking too hopeful.

[suggs]

Howards End, E. M. Forster.

One of the most beautifully written books of all time.

[btownmeggy]

I can see that. Suggs emotional point does cary a lotof validity, but at the same time, I don't really think that covers it all. Men must be emotional as well, in different ways. Whilst girls sitting a paper on (for example) LOTF would probably discuss the book in the context of emotions of the boys on the island, whilst I certainly (within our class) see a tendancy for the more masculine to offer up points regarding the nature of evil, the power struggle, the rediscovery of atavist and savage survival instincts etc...

I think a lady's critique might be more likely to look at, ohhhh, racialized notions of British imperialism as evidenced in the demonization of orcs, or.... the class-based idealization of English manhood vis-a-vis the Hobbits.

(If someone has already written papers on this, I do not intend to infringe on your intellectual property (though, a disputable claim with contemporary standards of property being a creation of the masculinist Enlightenment); if anyone takes my ideas and writes a paper, I expect a bibliography citation!)

[suggs]

I realise thingd have become even more competitive in the last 10 years.
But the key to Oxbridge is still A-Level results.And the interview. (or have they changed that? f*ck, i am out of touch)

My GCSEs were the poorest by some way out of anyone i knew at my college.
But (I feel a twat for saying this, whilst also experiencing an unfamiliar surge of pride) I apparently gave the best interview.
As long as you get all As in your A levels, you've got a decent chance of Oxbridge.

as an aside, its a lottery though - loads of quality students get turned away, and some muppets get let in. Some people at Queens were by no means exceptional.
And some dropped out...

[suggs]

er...Megs...you were talking about LOTR, right? Nap was talking about Lord of The Flies.
Or were you joking, and am I a gullible nit wit?

[btownmeggy]

er...Megs...you were talking about LOTR, right? Nap was talking about Lord of The Flies.
Or were you joking, and am I a gullible nit wit?

[suggs]

I'd like an extra portion of Nit de la Wit, please.

[btownmeggy]

I realise thingd have become even more competitive in the last 10 years.
But the key to Oxbridge is still A-Level results.And the interview. (or have they changed that? f*ck, i am out of touch)

My GCSEs were the poorest by some way out of anyone i knew at my college.
But (I feel a twat for saying this, whilst also experiencing an unfamiliar surge of pride) I apparently gave the best interview.
As long as you get all As in your A levels, you've got a decent chance of Oxbridge.

as an aside, its a lottery though - loads of quality students get turned away, and some muppets get let in. Some people at Queens were by no means exceptional.
And some dropped out...

I think, not so much at Cambridge anymore (maybe I'm wrong), but at Oxford the interview is still king.

[Napoleon Ier]

In terms of non-fiction, I heartily reccomend:

Government, Frédéric Bastiat
The Road to Serfdom, F. A Hayek
Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman
The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith (though I haven't read the whole of it, only selected passages).
On the Spirit of Laws, Montesquieu
Interventionism, an economic analysis, Ludwig von Mises

[Neoteny]

One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish
Dr. Seuss

[suggs]

Nap, have you honestly read all of those.
I say that cos they're all (bar the last one) books i love to have pretend i have read, but in reality have just read essays on them/ heard some one else talk about them

If you really have read them, then you will WALTZ INTO OXBRIDGE.

[Napoleon Ier]

I realise thingd have become even more competitive in the last 10 years.
But the key to Oxbridge is still A-Level results.And the interview. (or have they changed that? f*ck, i am out of touch)

My GCSEs were the poorest by some way out of anyone i knew at my college.
But (I feel a twat for saying this, whilst also experiencing an unfamiliar surge of pride) I apparently gave the best interview.
As long as you get all As in your A levels, you've got a decent chance of Oxbridge.

as an aside, its a lottery though - loads of quality students get turned away, and some muppets get let in. Some people at Queens were by no means exceptional.
And some dropped out...

I think, not so much at Cambridge anymore (maybe I'm wrong), but at Oxford the interview is still king.

That's reassuring then, I guess...what I do know though, is that they didn't take anyone with under 9 A* into Cambridge last year. Which scares the shit out of me.

[suggs]

Sorry, that was bugging me. They still do the interviews at Cambridge, I googled cams website.

[Napoleon Ier]

Nap, have you honestly read all of those.
I say that cos they're all (bar the last one) books i love to have pretend i have read, but in reality have just read essays on them/ heard some one else talk about them

If you really have read them, then you will WALTZ INTO OXBRIDGE.

All except Wealth of Nations. De L'Esprit des Lois I can't really claim to have read properly, which I must say went waayyy above my head too often for me. That was a couple of years ago though.

The other three are all well-short and not very long and lyke not komplykated.

[suggs]

"Love On The Dole", Walter Greenwood.

A novel, but the most accurate historical novel I've ever read. Bleak as hell though.

[Napoleon Ier]

One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish
Dr. Seuss

Funniest thing I read all day.