The 10 Most Influential Books in Your Life...

[Mary Ann]

In no particular order:

Heidi by Johanna Spyri--I read this book over and over again between the ages of 6 and 8.

Charlotte's Web by E. B. White--the first children's book to really move me.

Animal Farm by George Orwell--I was about 12 when I read this, and I remember being surprised at how angry I was by the end of the book.

The Chrysalids by John Wyndham--A grade 9 required reading book, this was the book that introduced me to science fiction.

The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco--first read when I was 16, I'm now on my third paperback copy as I've read it so often.

Firestarter by Stephen King--I'm including this because it was the first novel I read that left me hanging at the end, and it drove me nuts!

The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould--this was required reading for an anthropology paper I wrote for a professor who was a huge SJG fan. As soon as I'd returned the library copy I bought a copy for myself, and have purchased quite a few of SJG's books over the years.

The Country Diary of an Edwardian Lady by Edith B. Holden--apart from being the first book my then-boyfriend and now-husband ever gave me, Edith's watercolours are incredibly beautiful and inspirational.

The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf. This was another book I read for an anthropology course, but unlike The Mismeasure of Man I disliked it because the book discussed many problems but did not offer solutions. It inspired me to begin reading third-wave feminist books.

The poetry of John Betjeman. I never really enjoyed poetry in high school, but Betjeman's prose always makes me smile. Through him my prejudice against poetry has waned.

 

[CorporalClegg]

That's awesome. I wish we had more plays. The only one I was part of was an adaptation of Hansel & Gretel. So, you might say Grimm's fairytales are another influential book of mine .

Plays are fantastic. But it's hard for me view them as books, which is why I didn't put down any Shakespeare.

That's not to say they aren't great reads; I could have easily made my whole list be just Billy the Bard. But for me, it's just not the same as seeing the performed, or, better yet, performing them yourself and some friends.

 

[thestrangequark]

I'm starting to think this thread should have been titled "The Top 25 most influential books...", as we seem to keep piling on top of one another with other influential books we've read.

Ten is pretty brutal.

I don't know, if I sat here long enough, I could easily pull down 50 titles that have been influential in my life.

I don't know, for me ten was actually a stretch. I've read a lot of books that have all influenced me one way or another, but there are only a handful that have really changed me. There are a few on my list make me feel a very different person for having read them.

That's awesome. I wish we had more plays. The only one I was part of was an adaptation of Hansel & Gretel. So, you might say Grimm's fairytales are another influential book of mine .

Plays are fantastic. But it's hard for me view them as books, which is why I didn't put down any Shakespeare.

That's not to say they aren't great reads; I could have easily made my whole list be just Billy the Bard. But for me, it's just not the same as seeing the performed, or, better yet, performing them yourself and some friends.

Yeah, I'm really not fond of reading plays. I do love the sonnets, though.

 

[selina]

That's awesome. I wish we had more plays. The only one I was part of was an adaptation of Hansel & Gretel. So, you might say Grimm's fairytales are another influential book of mine .

Plays are fantastic. But it's hard for me view them as books, which is why I didn't put down any Shakespeare.

That's not to say they aren't great reads; I could have easily made my whole list be just Billy the Bard. But for me, it's just not the same as seeing the performed, or, better yet, performing them yourself and some friends.

Oh, I totally agreee. Plays are better if you see them on stage, but since HaventGotALife listed a play himself in the OP, I assumed it was fair game. I thought about whether or not to include them. In the end I decided in favour of the plays because reading them had an impact on me, e.g. reading Faust influenced my choices of studies.

I believe that reading a play helps you to understand the deeper meaning of it. You spend more time with the story and characters than you would do in theatre. To draw a conclusion, the best experience is probably to first read it, then to watch it. Or even better, to read it and then to perform it yourself. So, once again I agree .

 

[thestrangequark]

^For me it's the exact opposite. I feel that a play was meant to be performed, and I want to see it in its purest form first. I love seeing multiple interpretations of the same play as well. But reading plays falls flat to me. I don't really get what you mean about spending more time with the characters...surely watching a play takes much longer than reading one.

 

[Amaris]

Oh my god yes! 5th grade and I can still remember how devastated I was. I didn't realize it at the time but looking back I very clearly went through the stages of grief.

I did as well. It shocked me to the core, and made me think about death. As a child, I had never really thought about death, and Bridge to Terabithia made me realize that there was death, and it was waiting for every person, even me. Sure, there had been funerals in my family, but none of them drove home the meaning of what they meant, not until I had read this book.

Of course, as luck would have it, not a few weeks later, both of my hamsters died. It blew my little child mind. I was reduced to a gibbering mess.

Me, too. I cried buckets when I read that. I don't remember how old I was,but it was around 4th grade or the summer before 5th. Somewhere around there. I think that was the first time a book made me cry.

Yeah, I remember crying buckets as well. Many of the books I had read up to that point had happy endings, while this one was, at best, bittersweet. I took it as sheer tragedy.

I don't know, for me ten was actually a stretch. I've read a lot of books that have all influenced me one way or another, but there are only a handful that have really changed me. There are a few on my list make me feel a very different person for having read them.

Well, my schooling wasn't adequate. The teachers tried very hard, but we lived in a very poor part of town, and the school never quite had enough funding to give us everything we needed, even though they did what they could. I was also raised in a very conservative religious household, so I taught myself most of what I know from the various books I read as a child, and when I transitioned into adulthood (which I did far sooner than my classmates). I have so many books that I can credit for their part in pushing the boundaries of my mind.

I remember reading, as a young adult, Darwin's On the Origin of Species and feeling positively scandalized. Little did I realize that the book had planted a seed deep within my brain that would take many years to blossom, but would eventually do so in great abundance.

I remember reading a science book from 1963 that talked about the formation of the Earth taking place billions of years ago. I can still see the diagram of the Moon being formed from the Earth due to a collision that tore away material which then formed the satellite as we know it today, and I recall trying to reconcile that new knowledge with my Bible, and the words of my Sunday school teacher.

So many books shook the foundations of what I thought I knew. That is why my list would be so large. It wasn't just entering new worlds to explore, it was being shown the world outside the small sphere in which I had lived as a child, and those books were influential in changing my entire worldview.

It's another reason why I'm such a strong advocate of child literacy. The younger children learn to read, the more worlds will open to them, and will give them a far more solid footing than I had at such a young age.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I believe that reading a play helps you to understand the deeper meaning of it. You spend more time with the story and characters than you would do in theatre. To draw a conclusion, the best experience is probably to first read it, then to watch it. Or even better, to read it and then to perform it yourself. So, once again I agree .

I don't doubt one can find a lot of meaning from reading a play that she might not upon watching it performed. However, I still think it's best to see the performance first and then read it.

For example, I think, had I read Othello before ever seeing it performed, I wouldn't love it as much as I do, if only because Desdemona's death just wouldn't have been as powerful.

It's sort of like film novelizations. I think there have been some great ones (Greg!), but I could never understand why they're usually released before the film because, to me, it's best to see the film first.

 

[HaventGotALife]

I don't know, for me ten was actually a stretch. I've read a lot of books that have all influenced me one way or another, but there are only a handful that have really changed me. There are a few on my list make me feel a very different person for having read them.

Well, my schooling wasn't adequate. The teachers tried very hard, but we lived in a very poor part of town, and the school never quite had enough funding to give us everything we needed, even though they did what they could. I was also raised in a very conservative religious household, so I taught myself most of what I know from the various books I read as a child, and when I transitioned into adulthood (which I did far sooner than my classmates). I have so many books that I can credit for their part in pushing the boundaries of my mind.

I remember reading, as a young adult, Darwin's On the Origin of Species and feeling positively scandalized. Little did I realize that the book had planted a seed deep within my brain that would take many years to blossom, but would eventually do so in great abundance.

I remember reading a science book from 1963 that talked about the formation of the Earth taking place billions of years ago. I can still see the diagram of the Moon being formed from the Earth due to a collision that tore away material which then formed the satellite as we know it today, and I recall trying to reconcile that new knowledge with my Bible, and the words of my Sunday school teacher.

So many books shook the foundations of what I thought I knew. That is why my list would be so large. It wasn't just entering new worlds to explore, it was being shown the world outside the small sphere in which I had lived as a child, and those books were influential in changing my entire worldview.

It's another reason why I'm such a strong advocate of child literacy. The younger children learn to read, the more worlds will open to them, and will give them a far more solid footing than I had at such a young age.

My schooling was adequate. I went to Catholic schools K-6. I was very much a Conservative, but I was egalitarian. I was taught that "God is love," and "God don't make no junk." So when someone said to me, "I am an atheist. I don't believe in your God," it was shocking, but ultimately I had to accept that person. They were a child of God, someone to love, no matter where what I thought of them. This was reinforced by Star Trek that the brave new world of the future was about equality for all, and I watched it with a religious fervor. Still, I was shy and introverted and gravitated more to getting good grades and reading a book than I ever did to socializing and learning that way.

And, I was kept away from certain things. I relate to that in your story. My schooling had made me a ripe field, built learning into my personality, but the seeds were books. Books about topics I knew nothing about and a lot that I would've never picked up and started reading on my own.

That is why these books changed me. Some communicated what was within me already, and added knowledge to those conclusions, and, ultimately, validated me (something needed for an atheist, liberal, pansexual who always followed the rules). Others put life's challenges and mysteries on the map of my experiences. More still created a framework for how I experience life.

But I am stipulating, since I started this thread, add or subtract as many books as you think are necessary to give a full picture of what influenced you. If that's 5, make it 5. If that's 50, make it 50. Each person is different and there's no need to shoe-horn you into a top-ten list. I wish I had thought about that sooner.

 

[Amaris]

My schooling was adequate. I went to Catholic schools K-6. I was very much a Conservative, but I was egalitarian. I was taught that "God is love," and "God don't make no junk." So when someone said to me, "I am an atheist. I don't believe in your God," it was shocking, but ultimately I had to accept that person. They were a child of God, someone to love, no matter where what I thought of them. This was reinforced by Star Trek that the brave new world of the future was about equality for all, and I watched it with a religious fervor. Still, I was shy and introverted and gravitated more to getting good grades and reading a book than I ever did to socializing and learning that way.

And, I was kept away from certain things. I relate to that in your story. My schooling had made me a ripe field, built learning into my personality, but the seeds were books. Books about topics I knew nothing about and a lot that I would've never picked up and started reading on my own.

That is why these books changed me. Some communicated what was within me already, and added knowledge to those conclusions, and, ultimately, validated me (something needed for an atheist, liberal, pansexual who always followed the rules). Others put life's challenges and mysteries on the map of my experiences. More still created a framework for how I experience life.

But I am stipulating, since I started this thread, add or subtract as many books as you think are necessary to give a full picture of what influenced you. If that's 5, make it 5. If that's 50, make it 50. Each person is different and there's no need to shoe-horn you into a top-ten list. I wish I had thought about that sooner.

Firstly, it is so nice to know another atheist, liberal, pansexual who always follows the rules.

Secondly, I will have to get that list together, then. Most of it will be easy, but some of the books are deep in my memory, and I'll have to look up authors (I tend to remember titles and forget authors). Still, I shall make it happen.

 

[selina]

^For me it's the exact opposite. I feel that a play was meant to be performed, and I want to see it in its purest form first. I love seeing multiple interpretations of the same play as well. But reading plays falls flat to me. I don't really get what you mean about spending more time with the characters...surely watching a play takes much longer than reading one.

While I invested every day 1 hour in reading King Lear, it still took me about two or three weeks to finish it. (I have forgotten how long exactly it was.) A stage performance "just" takes about three hours. So, for me reading a play definitely takes longer.
Maybe I misunderstood something here due to the fact that English isn't my first language ?
Anyway, I tend to analyze the text and the story while reading. I think about characters motives, Leitmotifs and so on. I do the same while watching a play on stage but not as intensely.

I'm not denying that plays should be performed. They should. I just get more out of the experience when I read them in advance. Then I've got my own interpretation of the story and can compare it with the performance.
Having said that, I don't read all the plays I watch on stage because it would be very time consuming.

For example, I think, had I read Othello before ever seeing it performed, I wouldn't love it as much as I do, if only because Desdemona's death just wouldn't have been as powerful.

Nah, that doesn't bother me at all. They usually die . So, reading about it beforehand doesn't spoil my experience.

It's sort of like film novelizations. I think there have been some great ones (Greg!), but I could never understand why they're usually released before the film because, to me, it's best to see the film first.

I get it what you mean. However, maybe you can compare my point of view with a novel - let's say The Neverending Story - that was there before the movie. The novel is superior to the movie, because you naturally have to cut story elements in the movie. Despite that people watch rather the movie than reading the book. Maybe this is not the best example but as I tried to stress above, if I read a play first, I have my own interpretation of it. It is the uncut and uncensored version.

 

[thestrangequark]

While I invested every day 1 hour in reading King Lear, it still took me about two or three weeks to finish it. (I have forgotten how long exactly it was.) A stage performance "just" takes about three hours. So, for me reading a play definitely takes longer.

That makes sense. For me reading plays goes very quick, because there's not all the description that's in a novel. I haven't read King Lear, but Hamlet took me about 45 minutes to read, as opposed to the 4-4.5 hours of a full performance.

I'm not denying that plays should be performed. They should. I just get more out of the experience when I read them in advance. Then I've got my own interpretation of the story and can compare it with the performance.

It's just a matter of personal preference really, so it's all good. I just hate reading plays!

...So many books shook the foundations of what I thought I knew. That is why my list would be so large. It wasn't just entering new worlds to explore, it was being shown the world outside the small sphere in which I had lived as a child, and those books were influential in changing my entire worldview...

...That is why these books changed me. Some communicated what was within me already, and added knowledge to those conclusions, and, ultimately, validated me (something needed for an atheist, liberal, pansexual who always followed the rules). Others put life's challenges and mysteries on the map of my experiences. More still created a framework for how I experience life....

For me it was very much the opposite. My childhood was...eventful...to say the least. I was exposed to a lot of things a lot earlier than many people, and experienced a lot of things that perhaps I shouldn't have. Books were an escape. My parents were also both open-minded and learning was something that was important in and out of school. There wasn't enough of a foundation to be shaken...there were no beliefs...an epiphanic reading experience for me was not so much about challenging a worldview, it was more about refocusing the lens.

But I am stipulating, since I started this thread, add or subtract as many books as you think are necessary to give a full picture of what influenced you. If that's 5, make it 5. If that's 50, make it 50. Each person is different and there's no need to shoe-horn you into a top-ten list. I wish I had thought about that sooner.

In that case I'd actually shorten my list to seven, and my favorite book, Einstein's Dreams, which I've read over 50 times, wouldn't even make the cut! Here they are with more of a focus on how they changed me:

The Sherlock Holmes stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: As I said before, I read them first at age eight or nine. I suppose I'd still be inclined towards skepticism and critical thinking had I not read them, but they gave a name and structure for that mindset.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams: Because seeking meaning is a waste of time and makes you miss out on all the fun.
Sandman by Neil Gaiman and Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides made me feel less weird and alone.
Contact by Carl Sagan: As I said before, the book that made me understand that it was okay to not believe.
Stories of Your Life by Ted Chiang: "Story of Your Life" definitely provided me a new lens through which to look at life.
And, Mysterious Skin by Scott Heim, exactly as I said before: an honest portrayal of sexual abuse. I didn't realize until much later, but I think reading this book was almost baptismal for me. Before I read it I was still angry and disgusted with myself as a victim of child abuse. After I read it I was okay.

 

[selina]

^ Man, you're a quick reader .

 

[CorporalClegg]

I get it what you mean. However, maybe you can compare my point of view with a novel - let's say The Neverending Story - that was there before the movie. The novel is superior to the movie, because you naturally have to cut story elements in the movie. Despite that people watch rather the movie than reading the book. Maybe this is not the best example but as I tried to stress above, if I read a play first, I have my own interpretation of it. It is the uncut and uncensored version.

But see that's not really a fair comparison. The old adage "The book is always better than the movie," is usually true because the story's creator imagine it on the page first. In the case of a play or film the original vision was for the stage or screen.

 

[thestrangequark]

I get it what you mean. However, maybe you can compare my point of view with a novel - let's say The Neverending Story - that was there before the movie. The novel is superior to the movie, because you naturally have to cut story elements in the movie. Despite that people watch rather the movie than reading the book. Maybe this is not the best example but as I tried to stress above, if I read a play first, I have my own interpretation of it. It is the uncut and uncensored version.

But see that's not really a fair comparison. The old adage "The book is always better than the movie," is usually true because the story's creator imagine it on the page first. In the case of a play or film the original vision was for the stage or screen.

That's exactly how I feel. Though I can think of two movies that were better than their books.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Drawing the line at ten is neither better or worse than drawing it at five, or one hundred. My list is a mix of Italian and foreign, contemporary and old.

Il nome della rosa (The Name of the Rose), Umberto Eco
Jack Frusciante è uscito dal gruppo (Jack Frusciante Has Left the Band), Enrico Brizzi
Se questo è un uomo (If This is a Man), Primo Levi
Baol, Stefano Benni
The Lord of the Rings, JRR Tolkien
Gorki Park, Martin Cruz Smith
The Crow, James O'Barr
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams
Contact, Carl Sagan
The Foundation saga, Isaac Asimov

 

[thestrangequark]

^ Man, you're a quick reader .

Not that fast. I took a reading time test online recently while I was bored: Tells you how long it would take you to read several great literary classic and how much of your life would be wasted reading The Fountainhead. It gave me a score of 899 words per minute, which means I wasted a little over two hours of my life on Ayn Rand.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I did it a few times, and I got an average around 400 words per minute, more than 65% faster than the American average. Not bad, considering I learned English as a foreign language.

 

[selina]

But see that's not really a fair comparison. The old adage "The book is always better than the movie," is usually true because the story's creator imagine it on the page first. In the case of a play or film the original vision was for the stage or screen.

In my opinion the argument applies for plays as well. Every stage performance is a result of an interpretation by a director / an actor and therefore no longer the writer's vision. I've seen plays where the writer would probably turn over in his grave .

Not that fast. I took a reading time test online recently while I was bored: Tells you how long it would take you to read several great literary classic and how much of your life would be wasted reading The Fountainhead. It gave me a score of 899 words per minute, which means I wasted a little over two hours of my life on Ayn Rand.

Great link. I will try it tomorrow when I feel rested.

 

[thestrangequark]

But see that's not really a fair comparison. The old adage "The book is always better than the movie," is usually true because the story's creator imagine it on the page first. In the case of a play or film the original vision was for the stage or screen.

In my opinion the argument applies for plays as well. Every performance is interpreted by a director / an actor and therefore no longer the writer's vision. I've seen plays where the writer would probably turn over in his grave .

The classic example would probably be Hamlet, and whether or not Hamlet realizes Polonius and the King are watching when he delivers the "To be or not to be" soliloquy -- the entire interpretation of the character can hinge on just that. But I still feel that watching a play is the "truer" form, as it were. A novel was written to be read, not to be filmed. A play was written to be acted, not to be read.

 

[selina]

^ Like you said before, it is really a matter of preference .