Dt, that was not my point. Sorry, if I alluded those being favorites because I have never read neither. The point I was making was "how" they mentally were able to focus in writing such great (large) narratives. This ability to write such in depth books for most there was no collaboration. It is the work of one person's mind; good, bad or indifferent. I do not judge a book by popular consensus. I try to relate to what the author was trying to relate. All of our thoughts are manifested through our communiction efforts whatever those communications may be.
Now you, on several occasions have forwarded your opinion as to your thoughts as it relates to certain people whom you hold in disdain such as L. Ron Hubbard and of late Ayn Rand. I don't do that.
You have your reasons base on your perceptions and are fully entitled to do that. I cannot base my perception on yours because I am not you, likewise you are not me.
I will not be deterred by anothers opinion to read one or the other.
You made the statement once that Hubbard was only in it for the money. Name me popular religion that isn't to some degree?
I have read dianetics relating to the engram, and what is is to be "clear" and frankly though I do not understand it, some of it made sense and I store it. It could be just one sentence that I gather a truth from; so be it. Then it was worth reading as the word clear relates to gaining peace of mind and I am all for that and reading that may have been instrumental in my understanding of what "peace of mind" truly means. The auditor, as in the preacher, serve the same purpose in easing that mind, though both have different methods. Hubbards was by using a "bio-feedback" approach, where as, in many cases some preachers use sin and guilt.and redemption. Not all but some.
I have not read Atlas Shrugged but have an idea of what it is about and can't read Canterbury Tales because I don't know how; I don't communicate in such language nor will I try. Just like trying to interpret Revelation. I am not into esoteria that is meant to be esoteric. Not in the least.
Please forgive my rambling on so; I only do it so you will better understand a little more about me as to my perceptions and how I gather them as I wish to know more about you and how you gather that which forms your perceptions. To me that really enables us to "simplify matters" for both.
No offense and you are not disparaging my tastes. I will not allow that to happen. I will "see for myself" as it has been my entire life, and will form my own opinion based on what I have experienced. That's all I can do. Thank you for your contribution and hopefully we can better communicate with each other as a result of this conversation. That's what it all about to begin with, IMO.
I've only read the standards you can't get out of high school without reading, MacBeth, Romeo and Juliet, and Hamlet and a few sonnets.
That librivox thing seems cool, but I have a practical aversion to books on tape. Reading, it seems to me, improves the attention span while watching television destroys the attention span.
'The Tempest' just confuses me.
Paul, off the topic a bit; when you finish "Les Miserables", please bring us your perspective.
Simple - unjustly exiled prince revenges self on former family and friends but is prevented from going too far by the loving example of his daughter - but with wizards.
My own favourite episode of Moby Dick is the chapter on Cetology, in which Ishmael claims that the opinion that whales are mammals is patent nonsense and that the Blue Whale is nothing but a fable.