<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Dread Horseman
Posts: 661</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Book of the Century?
A couple of corrections, at the risk of getting caught in the crossfire:
(1) The first of Moorcock's Elric stories were published, unless I'm mistaken, in the mid-60's.
Stormbringer was published in 1965. Having said that, I agree that he's unlike Tolkien and has more in common, IMO, with pulp writers like Robert E. Howard. I enjoyed the Elric stories (though I must add the caveat that I read them at least fifteen years ago) and have recommended them elsewhere on the Downs. Personally, I wouldn't put him in the same league with Tolkien, but that is, of course, a matter of taste.
(2) Tolkien didn't decide not to publish the Sil with LotR -- he just couldn't convince any publishers to do it (despite impassioned arguments and long letters -- see
Letters for more details).
It's clear that everyone has a different yardstick by which they would measure the "best" book of the century (or millenium, or what have you). Several influential works and authors have been mentioned, and cases could be made for many of them as "best" according to some criteria. There are a dozen other authors whose work you might toss into the mix: Hemingway, Faulkner, Steinbeck, and Dostoyevsky, for a few examples.
But forget cultural and literary impact. Forget revolutions of form and style, and inventions of new literary genres. Forget sheer popularity and sales figures. If I was stranded alone on a desert island and could only have one book, what book would I want to have with me? I can't think of anything off the top of my head that would beat out LotR for that slot.
<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> From Gil:
People think I have read the book, because so many of my opinionated musings seem to have been foreseen by Ayn Rand. I haven't, but it is an obviously great and noted book. I've heard enough about it to perhaps even summarize it! I think its impact has yet to be felt, but that time may be coming.<hr></blockquote>Gilthalion -- I'm startled and amazed by this statement, since Ayn was opposed to so many things that I know you to believe in. I don't want to get too far off track here, but I'll just note that Ayn Rand was an "intransigent atheist" and solidly rejected the notions of "faith" and "altruism". Check these links for an overview of "Objectivism" (her philosophy) and its main tenents:
http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/io.htmlIntroducing Objectivism</a>
http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/essentials.htmlEssentials of Objectivism</a>
Each is only about a page long. I read both
Atlas Shrugged and
The Fountainhead, as well as some of her other non-fiction books, in college. I personally find objectivism to be a rather cold, hollow, and ultimately naïve philosophy. The two works cited, in my opinion, are little more than philosophical treatises masquerading as novels. I will leave it to others to judge what influence her theories on self-interest and laissez-faire capitalist economics have had or will have on modern culture.
</p>