[the guy who be short]

I wasn't going to post here but you've drawn me in Lal!

I myself have a "reading list" spanning over a page of books and authors, fiction and non-fiction. This was the direct result of a long period (to me) of booklessness when I couldn't find anything new. I add books to it according to recommendations from friends, newspapers, magazines, the internet, authors or Downers.

As for Ulysses - I'm a couple of hundred pages into it now after spotting in a Guardian list of books to read - I believe either you or davem posted a thread about it. The poet laureate, or whatever the obsolete man is called, had it on his list. The name caught my interest and later, as I went a-hunting in my library, I found it and took it out.

Not enjoying Ulysses? I enjoy all fo what I've read so far, simply because it's so different from what I'm accustomed to. It is indeed related to the language - the way Joyce composes the thoughts of each character in half-phrases and unfinished ideas strikes me as revolutionary genius (presuming he was the first to do this). And the complex language also helps - it pleases me when the book goes into French or German, or when I can deduce meaning from latin phrases. When the language is above me, it is a learning experience. It pleases, whichever angle I look at it from.


Now I've finished ranting! Hourra! What were we meant to be discussing?

I always wonder how people put together such lists. Do they go on choosing 'what is good for you to read', or do they simply pick what they like?

The article claims that they were asked which book people should read. That's a completely ambiguous and pointless question with no meaning behind it. I presume there would have been a few librarians in both of those categories, plus others choosing books relevant to culture or with moral messages or whatever. The question "what book should people read?" is so poorly phrased that we can't really get anything from it.