Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Good Reads

Rate this topic


meganfiala

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I'm fluently bilingual, I'm actually reading it in french. I though i would make a challenge of it. Although my writing/reading/speaking french is great, I still need a dictionary for the really old parisien words.

I hope i have an abridged version, i'm not sure....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I generally have little patience with history books, except those written by great historians like Paul Johnson

What books of his would you recommend, Betsy? I'm putting together a bookstore on my club's website and am looking around for good books in any genre, including history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What books of his would you recommend, Betsy?  I'm putting together a bookstore on my club's website and am looking around for good books in any genre, including history.

My favorite history book, covering all of Western Civilization from the cave man to the present, isn't a history book at all, but a work of fiction. It's James Michener's The Source. It makes history all so "up close and personal," and "You are there." I have recommended it to several Objectivist friends and they have all found it valuable. One other general recommendation is Daniel J. Boorstin's The Discoverers, the story of how men discovered their world and how it works.

Other that that, my approach to history has been very personal and I don't know how much of it would be of value to someone else. If I am interested in a time or place or person or activity, I'll go on a "curiosity binge" and read about its history. As a result, I know a lot about some parts of history, such as the biographies of my personal heroes, Ancient Greece, Colonial America, etc. and almost nothing about other parts such as the last three centuries of French and English history.

With that caveat, I have particularly enjoyed Paul Johnson's A History of the Jews and A History of the American People and the last really good biography I read was about Sarah Bernhardt -- The Divine Sarah by Arthur Gold and Robert Fizdale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I may be of some help in terms of history books given that I'm studying to be a historian and read many history books. Unfortunately there aren't many historians who do much integrating in terms of tying events together very well. But many do a good job in at least telling particulars in a way that is interesting and thought provoking.

If you want ancient history of Greeks and Romans I would recommend the ancient historians Xenophon, Livy, Thucydides, Procopius, Appian, Tacitus, et al. They are all crucial in any understanding of what happened in those nearly forgotten days, and it is from them mainly that all historical work about that period sprouts from. Josephus is also good, though somewhat biased. For a great work detailing the end then one should look no farther than Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, a work that does attempt to integrate and make sense of the end of the Rome and generally succeeds, plus modern historians hate it, which is always a good sign.

For medieval history look to William Manchester's A World Lit Only By Fire. Most other books on the subject are too lamenting of how things weren't so bad during the time period or else focus on the irrelevent, like what were women doing in the middle ages, or what songs did children sing in the middle ages.

American history is a mixed bag. Older history, like the works of Washington Irving, his Life of Columbus and Life of Washington are good. Paul Johnson has done good work in the field, as have particular biographers of various founders. Flexner's biography of Washington is good. Bradley's biography of Adams in excellent. I've never really read a book on Jefferson that I particularly liked. Ketchum's book on Madison is also good. A wonderful book about the French-Indian War and its effect on the revolution called Crucible of War is a fantastic read, it's by Fred Anderson. Unger's biographies on Lafayette and Hancock are interesting and Brookhiser is readable. Henry Adams is a rather poor, and hence overrated, historian whom I would avoid if possible.

Military History is usually better than other kinds of history. JFC Fuller wrote many fine books as did BH Liddell Hart on a wide variety of topics. Southey's Life of Nelson is excellent. Churchill's histories are very interesting, My Life is good as are The History of English Speaking Peoples and the The World Crisis. Ross Leckie also wrote many good military history books, all about American military history.

For Russian history Richard Pipes is excellent. Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is very good, and used quite a bit in Peikoff's The Ominous Parellels. John Keegan is probably the best military historian still alive, he has written many interesting books, including The Mask of Command and The First World War.

For illuminating books on the lies surrounding communism in America and the coverups perpetrated by liberal apologists during the cold war go to John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr.

Finally I cannot stress the overall importance of the writings of the men who were there. TE Lawrence, James J Hill, Fuller, Churchill, Eddie Rickenbacker, Caesar, EP Alexander, Patton, Chuck Yeager. All these people have written excellent histories.

Betsy mentioned fiction telling a great deal about history, this is certainly true. Dumas, Hugo, Walter Scott, Defoe, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Dickens, Jack Higgins, Ed Cline, and CS Forrester, just to name a few, all used historical events and persons very effectively in the telling of great stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I may be of some help in terms of history books given that I'm studying to be a historian and read many history books. Unfortunately there aren't many historians who do much integrating in terms of tying events together very well. But many do a good job in at least telling particulars in a way that is interesting and thought provoking.

If you want ancient history of Greeks and Romans I would recommend the ancient historians Xenophon, Livy, Thucydides, Procopius, Appian, Tacitus, et al. . . .

American history is a mixed bag. Older history, like the works of Washington Irving, his Life of Columbus and Life of Washington are good. Paul Johnson has done good work in the field, as have particular biographers of various founders.

I wonder what you think of the historical writings of two other 19th Century Americans, Francis Parkman and William Prescott.  I loved Parkman's La Salle and the Discovery of the Great West, ]which chronicles the exploits of early French explorers, Jesuits, and voyageurs ]in Canada and the American West.  La Salle and Henri de Tonty were particularly intrepid explorers.  I haven't read Prescott, but his histories of The Conquest of Mexico] and The Conquest of Peru ]look interesting.

On a more informal level, I like books like The Deaths of the Bravos, ]by John Myers Myers, which relates the stories of many 19th century American explorers, mountain men, and generally colorful characters, such as: Sam Houston, John Fremont, Jim Bridger, Hugh Glass, Jedidiah Smith, Jim Bowie, and many others.

In addition to the ancient Greek historians you listed, I would recommend the book I'm currently reading, Donald Kagan's The Peloponnesian War ](the recent one volume book, not the older four volume history) . ]Obviously Thucydides is closer to the events, but Kagan gives a bigger picture perspective, and also integrates it with modern world situations (occasionally).

One of my favorite WWII books, which dramatizes the astonishing courage and tenacity exhibited in battle, and the fact that the best laid plans go oft astray, is Cornelius Ryan's A Bridge Too Far.]   John Toland's The Rising Sun ]is an excellent depiction of what happens when a country allows its military command to take over the reins of government. 

And finally, in line with your suggestion of reading the writings of those who made history, I enjoy (or in some cases, look forward to enjoying) reading the books of explorer/adventurers, such as Marco Polo, Lewis and Clark, Henry Stanley and David Livingstone in Africa, Richard Burton and John Speke in Africa, Burton in India, the Arabian peninsula and elsewhere, John L. Stephens in Central America and the Yucatan,  and books about such men, such as Roland Huntford's book, The Last Place on Earth] (about Amundsen and Scott's race to the South Pole), and his book about the other South Pole explorer, Shackleton.   ]

] 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to create another thread to ask this question, but I think it's appropriate to ask it here:  Does anyone know of any Nathaniel Branden material worth reading?  Besides the essays in VOS.  I've heard his "Six Pillars of Self-Esteem" is good.  Would anyone agree, and why?

I haven't read Six Pillars... but for what it's worth, a few years ago I was seeing a therapist who had it on his bookshelf and told me it was good, and he was a great therapist (see? now I'm fine!). How's that for a second-hand recommendation? :D

As to meganfiala's question, I am in a similar position myself.  Through building a bookstore on my site (with amazon.com), I've read through many descriptions of books recently, and can make a few recommendations: "Barometer Rising" by Hugh MacLennon, "Monna Vanna" by Maurice Maeterlinck, and, as RadCap mentioned ealier, the Sparrowhawk series by Edward Cline.  These seem like interesting novels, but keep in mind that I haven't read any of them.

Just a factual correction--the final sentence makes it sound as though you are referring to all of the books in the previous sentence as "novels." Monna Vanna is not a novel, but a play. And it is indeed rather good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I classify worldly students into 4 categories: the political social; the philosophical; the artistic; the scientific. For the latter I have little advise except to learn Aristotelian logic and take a look at David Harriman. For the political type I have little advise too. But make it your purpose to understand the nature of individual rights, the difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism, and back it up with economics (Von Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt, Say, Smith, etc.). For the socially spirit, politics will help you with the boredom of dealing with everyday people. I say this because I’m of a more deeper type and most people have little interest in what I’m really about.

For the philosophical, learn logic. Motivate yourself to do this. You can go a long way with just focusing on Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, the pre-Socratics and Ayn Rand—at the start. This will give you confidence in understanding what philosophy is as such. It will introduce you to the major problems that have plagued philosophers up ‘til now. You will better understand ethics if you try to reconcile Aristotle and Ayn Rand. Aristotle’s approach to thinking is remarkable and extremely helpful. Look at Nietzsche only as a modern challenge but you can’t really understand him if you don’t familiarize with the problems that philosophers from Descartes to Schopenhauer were dealing with. I wasted a lot of time looking at the moderns first. I’m learning so much more focusing on Aristotle and the Ancients.

Now for art. I’ll just list by category. Fiction: Hugo (’93, Torquemada, Hernani, The Man who laughs, Toilers of the sea, Notre Dame de Paris, “Les Mis” [there’s an abridged version that sounds good]); those Rand recommends in Romantic Manifesto; Dramatist: Schiller (Don Carlos), Rostand (Cyrano, Chanticleer, etc.), and those taken up by Peikoff in “Eight Great Plays”. And of course Henrik Ibsen (Enemy of The People and many more). As you delve into the world of Romantic literature, you’ll find many gems. But, the philosophical importance of reading this type of literature, is that it is a lesson in Ethics, or rather morality. The bible does a lot for the Christian ethics.

I now feel like a tyrant giving a prescription. But this is what I know based on my experience. I often wish I knew five years ago what I now know. But the experience was fun and I amassed a wonderful book collection.

As for Nathaniel Branden, that someone asked about. No matter what people say about him, you won’t know if you don’t see it with your own eyes. An objectivist intellectual that I respect once told me that Branden has become a mystic in his later years. And this is fascinating because when you read Branden, this is hard to see: I would like some day to answer this question—how mystical is he? What a lesson in mysticism that would be! I’ll say that his first book, The Psychology of Self-Esteem is the only Objectivist textbook on psychology that I know of. As for his memoirs, I see it as a novel, I’m too young to know the real facts—but it is certainly dramatic.

That’s it.

Americo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I'll enthusiastically support the profoundly moving "Monna Vanna" by Maeterlinck. Another fantastic and incredibly moving play is "Cato" by Joseph Addison. Both are very heroic, both are very unique and without cliche heroes and villains, both deal with fundamental issues and important ideas, and both are highly emotional and moving. Not accidentally, both were written before 20th century, when such works were still possible, and encouraged. "Cato" was George Washington's favorite play, a historical play about the last desperate defender of the Roman Republic. Reading it will make you seriously debate whether Cato or Cicero were the giants of their age, great Roman heroes trying to save their country at the 11th hour (you can find more about Cicero in the Roman Republic thread). But whichever man wins your vote, you win either way, acquiring for yourself an admirable hero to admire and imitate. Maybe they'll tie, even better :)

Anyway, moving on from those remarkable plays, if you're historically inclined and "Cato" has whetted your appetite for more info on what made Rome admirable, I suggest "Rise of Rome" by Polybius, a Greek historian who wrote the histories to explain to his countrymen what made Romans so good as to enable them rise from a provincial small town to the most admired and feared empire of all, what they had that even the Greeks lacked. His histories are written before the collapse of the Republic into a tyranny, and filled with real-life heroes, smashing battles, and tremendous moral struggles. It'd make a very good fiction adventure book, if it wasn't true! (I can recommend a whole host of books on ancient history, and of heroes to read up on, if you PM me.)

Well right now I'm a fanatic on ancient history so can't recommend books from other genres, reading everything I can get my hands on for the past year. Back a few years ago, I enjoyed the Robert Jordan books, both his Wheel of Time series, and his books on Conan the Barbarian (the latter being a whole lot of fun, about this uber strong, manly hairy guy who takes both his enemies and his women by storm :) ).

A question was asked about good Nathaniel Branden books. From what I understand of his intellectual career, he was at his height right when the break with AR came along, i.e. in late 60s. That is when he wrote what I consider to be a fantastic book on Self Esteem, "Psychology of Self Esteem" (most of which was written before the break, and was approved by AR). It is a book especially helpful to fledgling Objectivists, where many important issues such as pseudo self-esteem, and personal integration, are covered and explained. Anyway, NB was all downhill from there, reaching his current intellectual stage which is patently pitiable for its imprecise and unessentialized wording. It's as if he became a modern academician, accepting in some way their vague approach to philosophy and ideas. His definitions today are completely vague and unusable, for example, enabling him to support the Lib Party not out of some malevolence, but out of laziness for precision, a trait completely absent in the astounding precision found in the book referenced above. Anyway, it's funny how in his "Benefits and Hazards", Branden wrote that Oists have this un-integrated self, how they have pseudo self-esteem, and how AR supposedly encouraged that. That's funny because in the "P of SE" he explicitly addressed these issues, showed why true Objectivists didn't have them, explained how misunderstanding and misapplication of the philosophy could lead to these problems, and formulated his ideas with the persuasiveness of an intellectual and Objectivist giant. That book is truly seminal, and I highly recommend it to anyone who feels unhappy with some psychological issues within himself and wants to complement his study of Objectivism with a theory of psychology derived from the philosophy (a theory that Branden has thereafter moved away from, espousing a less radical, less precise, and less philosophical defense of self esteem). Anyway, the book was really helpful, go get it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recommend the novels and short stories by Frank Spearman that I have read:

The Nerve of Foley

Held for Orders

The Daughter of a Magnate

Whispering Smith

The first two are collections of short stories; the latter two are novels. They were written around 100 years ago. All of them center on "railroad life" - adventures of men who work on a railroad in the Western US. Spearman projects a benevolent universe of people who are purposeful, happy and hard-working in their daily lives. They are the kind of people I would like to know and work with in real life. (And you might be surprised to read about all of the interesting and suspenseful problems that can arise in the running of a railroad.)

Somewhere I believe I read that Ayn Rand had read and liked some of Spearman's work, but I do not remember the source.

(You can find these books, as well as many others of general interest to Objectivists on the web site of their publisher: Paper Tiger, www.papertig.com.)

.....

A historical novel that I read and liked is The Beacon at Alexandria by Gillian Bradshaw. This is set in the later Roman Empire, about 370 as I recall. It is about a young woman whose dream is to be a doctor and how she achieves her goal. (Which was no easy feat at the time!) The novel presents characters (especially, but not only, the heroine) who are hard working and goal-directed, motivated by their love of some value. But you also get to learn about early medicine (and the contrast between science and superstition) and the Roman Empire as it was then (very much in decline), including life on its frontier, conflicts with the barbarians, and the influence of Christianity at the time. And although the book is set in a period of decline and decadence of the Roman Empire, it does depict nevertheless what a great achievement that civilization was, and by implication what a tragedy the collapse a century later was. It's also a good story of how it's possible to pursue and achieve values in a declining but still viable culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question was asked about good Nathaniel Branden books. From what I understand of his intellectual career, he was at his height right when the break with AR came along, i.e. in late 60s. That is when he wrote what I consider to be a fantastic book on Self Esteem, "Psychology of Self Esteem" (most of which was written before the break, and was approved by AR).

What evidence do you have that "most of" that book was "approved" by Ayn Rand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- The book was published in 1969, and most of it (so he says in the Introduction) was completed before the break

- a work of that kind would be incredibly difficult to write and publish by 1969 if was started the day after the break

- in the book I found none of bitterness toward AR and Oism that would so characterize NB's later works

- there are many passages in the book that are small, charming anecdotes providing a glimse of a comfortable, relaxed life (something I doubt he had after the break, what with the rejection, though deserved, from a woman of AR's magnitude, breaking of NBI, changing cities, establishing a new practice from scratch).

- I'm not a pro in Oism by any means, but I've found nothing in the book that contradicts the philosophy, and an enormous deal that complements it.

- and finally he says so himself in the book's introduction, though in retrospect I can see why one would give this fact the least weight. But then again, I read the first edition (my library doesn't update books often apparently), and so whatever is said in the Introduction was said by the old NB, not the new one. In my cursory study of his intellectual career, I've observed that it went downhill from the break, with increasingly vague definitions and decreasing honesty about past events. I'd think he was still more or less honest in 1969.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- and finally he says so himself in the book's introduction, though in retrospect I can see why one would give this fact the least weight.

Actually, I give that no weight. Your preceding answers were interesting comments but not at all evidence for what you asserted. If you want to claim your assertion is true because Branden said so, then in fairness to Ayn Rand you should qualify your assertion with something like "according to Branden." But, please, do not make claims that the book was "approved" by Ayn Rand without identifying your (dubious) source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is admittedly speculative, and I don't have the resources available to check it myself, but was any of the material in The Psychology of Self-Esteem previously published in The Objectivist Newsletter or The Objectivist? If Branden had been working on the book prior to the break that seems at least possible, and any material so published could reasonably be viewed as "approved" by Ayn Rand.

I do have to agree with the observation that the quality of Branden's work went downhill steadily after his break with Rand. The Psychology of Self-Esteem is IMHO his 'best' work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is admittedly speculative, and I don't have the resources available to check it myself, but was any of the material in The Psychology of Self-Esteem previously published in The Objectivist Newsletter or The Objectivist?  If Branden had been working on the book prior to the break that seems at least possible, and any material so published could reasonably be viewed as "approved" by Ayn Rand.

Yes, if any material in that book was published just as it was previously published in the Objectivist material, then indeed it would be proper to say that that particular material was "approved" in advance of the book publication by Ayn Rand. But, even if that were true, that hardly qualifies as justifying the blanket statement that the book itself was "approved" by Ayn Rand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, NB's say-so was the last, and least weighty reason in the list I provided. The reasons for my statement were circumstantial, in that he was held in highest repute by AR for most of the book's creative period, and the book itself deals with difficult subjects, and deals with them admirably and without equal in other books I've read. Now, if I were him and I was engaged in writing this book, I would show it to AR and have her comment on it. Since he's been practicing psychology for many years by 1968, AR was well familiar with his psychology theories, etc. In general all circumstantial facts point to the conclusion that a book of this quality and magnitude would not avoid AR's knowledge, as it was being written.

Now, however, in today's environment of people appropriating AR's name and work left and right (NB being himself on the bleeding edge of this phenomenon), I agree with you that we must be extra sticklers about what constitutes Objectivist material and what doesn't. But when all this craziness blows over, in a decade or in 50 years, I do believe the book will be considered part of the Objectivist corpus, just like David Kelley's "Evidence of the Senses".

Edit: or rather, DK's book will be held on par with LP's "OPAR" as valid continuation of Objectivist theories, despite the fact that DK has shown himself in disagreement with the philosophy in the years subsequent to publishing the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you that we must be extra sticklers about what constitutes Objectivist material and what doesn't.

Then please do not make the claim that Ayn Rand "approved" that book when all you have is evidence that you yourself deem to be circumstantial. It is an issue of honesty to the facts, and respect for Ayn Rand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the difference here is what we mean by the word "approved". In the original post, I meant it in a more loose sense of a book (or at least most of it) that was written by a prominent Objectivist , was difficult and pioneering in its theme (not previously addressed by AR or other prominent Objectivists), and was read and agreement expressed by AR to the author and in private circles. I did not mean "approve" in the strict sense of her writing in the Oist Newletter, "I've read this book and I like it."

Circumstantial evidence is, after all, evidence of some kind, not a useless fact. While we lack AR's official statement, it is more than reasonable to suggest that she read and agreed with the parts of the book finished by the time of the break.

So it's not that I'm misconstruing definitions or somehow allowing infringement on AR's honor. I simply chose a loose definition while you chose a strict one. It is a matter of choice, and I agreed with you that for the time being, when people will abuse loose definitions to acquire unearned rewards, it will be best suit to exclude PoSE from "official" Oist material, though it certainly belongs there and ought to be so considered when the dishonest men stop trying to cash in. I'm arguing for the proper place for the book, not the current one. By corollary, though "officially" I will have to temporarily amend my previous statement and say that AR did not approve of Psychology of Self Esteem in any public fashion, it should be apparent from these posts that I see it "as if" it was official Oist material, and highly helpful to one's pursuit of personal success and happiness (and I will venture a guess that everyone who's read it will agree).

But the reason I brought "Evidence of the Senses" into this is I didn't know how far you would go with the strictness policy. You might have said that DK's book is bad because he's shown himself to be a pseudo-Objectivist. I'm sorry if you were offended in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...