So, I finally sat down and made my list of 100 great books, referencing the lists in my last post (as well as the one so kindly provided by Rikki). At least I can say I accomplished something over Thanksgiving break — other than eating and lounging at my parents' house. I'm already feeling a bit overwhelmed about reading all of these, but I'm also excited.
Anyway, to the list itself. Some obvious books are not included because I've read them fairly recently or the thought of reading them again makes me want to vomit. I feel that way about a few of the books on my list, but hopefully those won't be as much of a chore as I expect. I've read some of the books before, but I included them on the list because I'd like to reread them. I didn't allow any author to appear more than twice (12 do). I intentionally avoided poetry and drama (though a few are included), and at first I avoided philosophy and fantasy but eventually caved near the end.
In no particular order, Jenny's 100 Great Books:
1. THE GREAT GATSBY by F. Scott Fitzgerald
2. LOLITA by Vladimir Nabokov
3. BELOVED by Toni Morrison
4. THE GOLDEN ASS by Apuleius
5. PRIDE AND PREJUDICE by Jane Austen
6. THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV by Fyodor Dostoevsky
7. THE AWAKENING by Kate Chopin
8. ATLAS SHRUGGED by Ayn Rand
9. THE DIVINE COMEDY by Dante Alighieri
10. DON QUIXOTE by Miguel de Cervantes
11. THE SOUND AND THE FURY by William Faulkner
12. ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SOLITUDE by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
13. ULYSSES by James Joyce
14. THE GRAPES OF WRATH by John Steinbeck
15. 1984 by George Orwell
16. SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE by Kurt Vonnegut
17. TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD by Harper Lee
18. A FAREWELL TO ARMS by Ernest Hemingway
19. THEIR EYES WERE WATCHING GOD by Zora Neale Hurston
20. NATIVE SON by Richard Wright
21. ON THE ROAD by Jack Kerouac
22. THE JUNGLE by Upton Sinclair
23. SOPHIE'S CHOICE by William Styron
24. ETHAN FROME by Edith Wharton
25. TO THE LIGHTHOUSE by Virginia Woolf
26. THINGS FALL APART by Chinua Achebe
27. WOMEN IN LOVE by D.H. Lawrence
28. WIDE SARAGASSO SEA by Jean Rhys
29. RABBIT, RUN by John Updike
30. MIDNIGHT'S CHILDREN by Salman Rushdie
31. WAR AND PEACE by Leo Tolstoy
32. THE NAKED AND THE DEAD by Norman Mailer
33. POINT COUNTER POINT by Aldous Huxley
34. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE by Anthony Burgess
35. UNDER THE VOLCANO by Malcolm Lowry
36. THE HANDMAID'S TALE by Margaret Atwood
37. ZEN AND THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE by Robert Pirsig
38. FAHRENHEIT 451 by Ray Bradbury
39. MY ANTONIA by Willa Cather
40. THE CANTERBURY TALES by Geoffrey Chaucer
41. GULLIVER'S TRAVELS by Jonathan Swift
42. MIDDLEMARCH by George Eliot
43. GONE WITH THE WIND by Margaret Mitchell
44. CATCH-22 by Joseph Heller
45. CONFESSIONS by St. Augustine
46. PARADISE LOST by John Milton
47. LEAVES OF GRASS by Walt Whitman
48. KIM by Rudyard Kipling
49. FRANKENSTEIN by Mary Shelley
50. ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST by Ken Kesey
51. THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER by Carson McCullers
52. HEART OF DARKNESS by Joseph Conrad
53. NIGHT by Elie Wiesel
54. THE WIND IN THE WILLOWS by Kenneth Grahame
55. THE COLOR PURPLE by Alice Walker
56. THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO by Karl Marx
57. A TALE OF TWO CITIES by Charles Dickens
58. BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S by Truman Capote
59. THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY by Oscar Wilde
60. THE TURN OF THE SCREW by Henry James
61. THE OUTSIDER by Albert Camus
62. LES MISERABLES by Victor Hugo
63. THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE by Philip K. Dick
64. THE SCARLET LETTER by Nathaniel Hawthorne
65. THE NAME OF THE ROSE by Umberto Eco
66. THE COURAGE TO BE by Paul Tillich
67. MAN'S SEARCH FOR MEANING by Viktor Frankl
68. THE SOCIAL CONTRACT by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
69. THE PRINCE by Niccolo Machiavelli
70. THE LEVIATHAN by Thomas Hobbes
71. THE SOULS OF BLACK FOLK by W.E.B. DuBois
72. A DEATH IN THE FAMILY by James Agee
73. JANE EYRE by Charlotte Bronte
74. WUTHERING HEIGHTS by Emily Bronte
75. BABBITT by Sinclair Lewis
76. THE CRUCIBLE by Arthur Miller
77. UNCLE TOM'S CABIN by Harriet Beecher Stowe
78. ALICE IN WONDERLAND by Lewis Carroll
79. A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE by Tennessee Williams
80. THE WAY OF ALL FLESH by Samuel Butler
81. THE DARK TOWER series by Stephen King
82. HIS DARK MATERIALS by Philip Pulman
83. THE LORD OF THE RINGS by J.R.R. Tolkein
84. INVISIBLE MAN by Ralph Ellison
85. PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT by Philip Roth
86. STATE OF FEAR by Michael Crichton
87. HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY by Douglas Adams
88. SELECTED POETRY OF ADRIENNE RICH
89. FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS by Ernest Hemingway
90. ANNA KARENINA by Leo Tolstoy
91. AS I LAY DYING by William Faulkner
92. SONG OF SOLOMON by Toni Morrison
93. CRIME AND PUNISHMENT by Fyodor Dostoevsky
94. OF MICE AND MEN by John Steinbeck
95. THIS SIDE OF PARADISE by F. Scott Fitzgerald
96. A PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN by James Joyce
97. ORLANDO by Virginia Woolf
98. LILA by Robert Pirsig
99. THE STAND by Stephen King
100. CAT'S CRADLE by Kurt Vonnegut
Oh, and I've decided against the Kindle. Instead, I'm going to buy all these books at the cheapest used price I can find to build my paper library even more. :) (And I already own 21 of them, so I'm over one-fifth of the way there.)
I'll come back and italicize as I complete books.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
100 Classic Books
So, I've decided to set out to accomplish a rather daunting task: read 100 classic books. I'm requesting a Kindle for Christmas, so hopefully its portability and convenience will aid in the achievement of this goal.
As I've browsed around the internet, I've found quite a few different lists. I'm having a hard time choosing between them. I would love to receive suggestions on which one I should follow. Here are a few I've found, but there are many more out there.
• Penguin Classics
• Newsweek
• Modern Library
• Radcliffe Publishing Course
As I've browsed around the internet, I've found quite a few different lists. I'm having a hard time choosing between them. I would love to receive suggestions on which one I should follow. Here are a few I've found, but there are many more out there.
• Penguin Classics
• Newsweek
• Modern Library
• Radcliffe Publishing Course
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Compromises limit abortion accessibility
Originally published in the Nov. 9 issue of the Daily Beacon, this column I wrote discusses the potential limited accessibility to abortions caused by the House's Nov. 7 passage of the health care reform bill:
I feel sick about the concessions abortion-rights Democrats made in order to pass the health care bill through the House Saturday night.
Forced to choose between a public option and readily available abortions, pending passage through the Senate, this bill may successfully limit women’s access to affordable abortions.
It’s shameful that there was little to no coverage of this abortion amendment, which passed 240-194, prior to the passage of the bill as a whole. Most articles available as of Sunday morning touted the passage of this bill as a great success and relegated the issue and implications of the abortion amendment to the last few lines of a larger story about the bill’s “historic” passage. (The New York Times did create a nice graphic and map showing the geographical spread of support and dissent for the amendment, which shows us Tennesseans that only one of our representatives voted against the abortion amendment: Steven Cohen, Democratic representative from Tennessee’s ninth district.)
Luckily, in perusing the Internet Saturday night, I came across Meredith Simons’ Nov. 7 doubleX.com blog entry entitled “A Critique of the Stupak Amendment: Choose Between Health Care and Abortion.” Published at 10:07 p.m., just before the bill itself was passed, Simons warned, “Remember those conservatives who don’t want the government interfering in health care plans? Right, well, it turns out what they meant was they don’t want the government interfering in health care plans, except when it comes to abortion. At that point, the government can interfere to its heart’s content.”
This is obviously a controversial topic, and I can understand anti-abortion supporters’ conviction that the government should not fund a procedure they deem morally reprehensible, to the point of considering it murder. Such a concern is, of course, a justifiable reason for the addition of the amendment.
The language of the bill (H.R. 3962) is fairly neutral, promising “no preemption of state laws regarding abortion,” “no effect on federal laws regarding abortion” and “no effect on federal civil rights laws” in section 258. Section 259 demands that any “federal agency or program and any state or local government that receives federal financial assistance under this act” cannot discriminate against any “health care entity (who) does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of or refer for abortions.”
This seems harmless enough, right? Wrong.
“To say that this amendment is a wolf in sheep’s clothing would be an understatement of a lifetime,” said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) during floor debate. It “will be the greatest restriction of a women’s right to choose” passed by Congress “in our career,” according to a Nov. 7 Bloomberg.com article.
The bill will theoretically allow women to purchase a “rider” for their government-sponsored health insurance that would provide them with coverage for abortion procedures. We all know who this kind of provision favors — those who can afford to buy private health insurance anyway, not the poor and underprivileged, those who desperately need access to affordable abortions.
Such a plan will actually limit the coverage of “low- and middle-income women who qualify for government subsidies, along with the legions of women who will buy insurance on the exchange because they are either self-employed or employed by small businesses.” They “won’t be able to get plans that automatically include abortion coverage,” Simons writes.
Even worse, a Sept. 30 New York Times editorial claims this “rider” option is actually a charade, “an unworkable approach given that almost no one expects to need an abortion, few women would buy the rider and, therefore, few insurance companies would even offer it.”
Simons reiterates this point: “Businesses don’t like to sell products that don’t have a market, and the market for something like an abortion rider — essentially a plan for an unplanned pregnancy — is notoriously slim.”
By allowing this concession and effectively restricting the availability of abortions to those who can afford to pay for the procedure out of pocket, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has successfully limited the rights of women, pending the passage of a similar bill through the Senate.
According to a Nov. 8 New York Times article entitled “Abortion Was at Heart of Wrangling,” “Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said the bill’s original language barring the use of federal dollars to pay for abortions should have been sufficient for the opponents. ‘Abortion is a matter of conscience on both sides of the debate,’ DeLauro said. ‘This amendment takes away that same freedom of conscience from America’s women. It prohibits them from access to an abortion even if they pay for it with their own money. It invades women’s personal decisions.’”
I feel sick about the concessions abortion-rights Democrats made in order to pass the health care bill through the House Saturday night.
Forced to choose between a public option and readily available abortions, pending passage through the Senate, this bill may successfully limit women’s access to affordable abortions.
It’s shameful that there was little to no coverage of this abortion amendment, which passed 240-194, prior to the passage of the bill as a whole. Most articles available as of Sunday morning touted the passage of this bill as a great success and relegated the issue and implications of the abortion amendment to the last few lines of a larger story about the bill’s “historic” passage. (The New York Times did create a nice graphic and map showing the geographical spread of support and dissent for the amendment, which shows us Tennesseans that only one of our representatives voted against the abortion amendment: Steven Cohen, Democratic representative from Tennessee’s ninth district.)
Luckily, in perusing the Internet Saturday night, I came across Meredith Simons’ Nov. 7 doubleX.com blog entry entitled “A Critique of the Stupak Amendment: Choose Between Health Care and Abortion.” Published at 10:07 p.m., just before the bill itself was passed, Simons warned, “Remember those conservatives who don’t want the government interfering in health care plans? Right, well, it turns out what they meant was they don’t want the government interfering in health care plans, except when it comes to abortion. At that point, the government can interfere to its heart’s content.”
This is obviously a controversial topic, and I can understand anti-abortion supporters’ conviction that the government should not fund a procedure they deem morally reprehensible, to the point of considering it murder. Such a concern is, of course, a justifiable reason for the addition of the amendment.
The language of the bill (H.R. 3962) is fairly neutral, promising “no preemption of state laws regarding abortion,” “no effect on federal laws regarding abortion” and “no effect on federal civil rights laws” in section 258. Section 259 demands that any “federal agency or program and any state or local government that receives federal financial assistance under this act” cannot discriminate against any “health care entity (who) does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of or refer for abortions.”
This seems harmless enough, right? Wrong.
“To say that this amendment is a wolf in sheep’s clothing would be an understatement of a lifetime,” said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) during floor debate. It “will be the greatest restriction of a women’s right to choose” passed by Congress “in our career,” according to a Nov. 7 Bloomberg.com article.
The bill will theoretically allow women to purchase a “rider” for their government-sponsored health insurance that would provide them with coverage for abortion procedures. We all know who this kind of provision favors — those who can afford to buy private health insurance anyway, not the poor and underprivileged, those who desperately need access to affordable abortions.
Such a plan will actually limit the coverage of “low- and middle-income women who qualify for government subsidies, along with the legions of women who will buy insurance on the exchange because they are either self-employed or employed by small businesses.” They “won’t be able to get plans that automatically include abortion coverage,” Simons writes.
Even worse, a Sept. 30 New York Times editorial claims this “rider” option is actually a charade, “an unworkable approach given that almost no one expects to need an abortion, few women would buy the rider and, therefore, few insurance companies would even offer it.”
Simons reiterates this point: “Businesses don’t like to sell products that don’t have a market, and the market for something like an abortion rider — essentially a plan for an unplanned pregnancy — is notoriously slim.”
By allowing this concession and effectively restricting the availability of abortions to those who can afford to pay for the procedure out of pocket, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has successfully limited the rights of women, pending the passage of a similar bill through the Senate.
According to a Nov. 8 New York Times article entitled “Abortion Was at Heart of Wrangling,” “Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said the bill’s original language barring the use of federal dollars to pay for abortions should have been sufficient for the opponents. ‘Abortion is a matter of conscience on both sides of the debate,’ DeLauro said. ‘This amendment takes away that same freedom of conscience from America’s women. It prohibits them from access to an abortion even if they pay for it with their own money. It invades women’s personal decisions.’”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
