As some of you (may) know, I am not a big fan of reading challenges. Nor do I do resolutions. You may also know that currently I do not read many books (as you will see soon enough [future link]); although I do have a pretty good theory about why my reading is what it is currently.
When I first saw this 2007 TBR Challenge at Wanderings of a Librarian I thought “No way!” Then I noticed that it was only committing to 12 books in a year. As you will soon see, that is about how many books I read this year for “fun.”
I thought it doable enough that I went through many of my books and identified about 30 possibilities and a few definites. Narrowing it down from there has been much more difficult. The rules also theoretically proscribe anything newer than 6 months in your possession. What if I get (or buy) something good for Christmas? [As I did the 1st and will do the 2nd.]
I was trying to work on narrowing down my list earlier and decided to go back to the official challenge site to see how people were handling “options,” whether alternatives or extras. I was mostly interested in alternatives, but it was the “extras” that got me. MizB, the originator of this challenge, and others, are referring to these as “Extra Credit.” Extra Credit. WTF? There’s no “extra credit” for expanding your mind and/or experience. You read because you want to, and maybe you help motivate yourself by committing to these challenges, or listing your goal publicly somewhere [as I seem about to do...], maybe even somewhere others can comment on them, but there is no freaking “extra credit” for reading.
Maybe it makes sense to some of you; I’m sorry for my comments if it does, but it seems completely inane to me.
So, with all that babbling as preface … I am going out on a limb (for me) and making a vaguish commitment to try and read 12 books (at least) in 2007, many of which will come from my huge backlog of “to be read” books.
I am setting this goal as part of my continual attempt at self-growth; exposure to information, facts; and striving for knowledge and wisdom. I read for me; so that I can be a better person and a better citizen of the world. “Extra credit” has no place in the picture. I am also not linking anywhere, joining any lists, or doing other things. This is an opportunity for me to do a little more focused reflection on what I need/want to read in 2007.
(Probable) Definites
Lakoff - Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind 600 pp.
Foucault - The Archaeology of Knowledge & The Discourse on Language
Eli Hirsch - Dividing Reality
Herodotus - The Histories
Henricus Cornelius Agrippa - Declamation on the Nobility and Preeminence of the Female Sex
Nicholas Ostler - Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World
George Eliot - Silas Marner: The Weaver of Raveloe
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn - One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
Alain Renaut - The Era of the Individual: A Contribution to a History of Subjectivity
Possibilities
Lakoff and Johnson - Philosophy in the Flesh 600 pp.
Hofstadter - Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought 500 pp.
Hofstadter - Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid 760 pp.
Elio Frattaroli - Healing the Soul in the Age of the Brain: Becoming Conscious in an Unconscious World 430 pp.
Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America 700 pp.
Michael Williams - Groundless Belief: An Essay on the Possibility of Epistemology, 2nd ed.
John Cottingham - Philosophy and the Good Life
Richard Rorty - Philosophy and Social Hope
David Riesman - The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character
Todorov - Hope and Memory: Lessons from the 20th Century
Ellul - The Technological Bluff
Buschman - Dismantling the Public Sphere: situating and sustaining librarianship in the age of the new public philosophy
Erik Davis - TechGnosis: myth, magic + mysticism in the age of information
The Information Society Reader (Routledge Student Readers) ed. Frank Webster
Brown & Duguid - The Social Life of Information
Camille Paglia - Blow, Break, Burn
Biographies of Scientific Objects, ed. by Lorraine Daston
Thoma Gieryn - Cultural Boundaries of Science: credibility on the line
K. C. Cole - The Universe and the Teacup: The Mathematics of Truth and Beauty
Dumas - The Three Musketeers
I’m open to input on the Hofstadters; I can’t read both of those big books and make progress on many others. Which is the best to read first? Or comments about either generally?
I figure this is a pretty ambitious list, which includes a vast array of topics and literature. I mean I have poetry on my reading list; I can’t get much more ambitious than that. Although, I am starting with a shorter poetry book. 
There’s a lot to be said for all of these, especially those on the definite list. All of those on the definite list make perfect sense for me. The first three have to do with “classification” and categorization, there’s a book about words and languages, and one about the removal of the subject from modern Western discourse. The Eliot is the only one needing any justification. I wanted to include a couple works of literature and can only have so many lengthy books, and I really enjoyed Middlemarch—one of the finest books I have ever read—so I thought a short one by Eliot would be good to include.
Narrowing down the possibilities list will be difficult [which is why I want to leave it open for now]. The easier discriminators are (1) decide on which, if either, of the Hofstadters, (2) probably not Lakoff and Johnson, nor the Tocqueville. The poetry, the Biographies of Scientific Objects, and the The Information Society Reader have a lot going for them as they are in more bite-sized chunks; certainly not snippets, but far easier to read than lengthy [book-length] sustained arguments [of which there are plenty on the lists]. The Cole would be good as I need to read more math; although the use of those words in the sub-title is really irking me. I should give her a chance, though, and read what she really means by it. Also, lots of great philosophy and sociology (both connected to how individuals and societies actually do/should live).
Anyway, any input on my list, my lack of commitment in certain quarters, or other comments on this topic are welcomed.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Joy Weese Moll // Dec 27, 2006 at 2:48 pm
You might prefer “understudies” to “extra credit.” The 43 Things user gruffcoat came up with the idea:
http://www.43things.com/entries/view/1467839
Her or she chose 12 books, then selected a couple more as understudies, in case “some book comes down ill and is not able to perform.”
2 Mark // Dec 27, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Ah, thanks Joy! That is a *much* better metaphor and a huge improvement.
I’ll leave my list at 9 “definites” and the rest as “understudies” to fill in as need be.
Thanks, Joy!
3 heavymetallibrarian // Dec 29, 2006 at 11:28 am
Mark, am I to take this to mean that you have NOT yet read Dismantling the Public Sphere? They could revoke your M.S. for that, you know…
4 Mark // Dec 29, 2006 at 11:56 am
Yes Ma’am, it is meant to imply that. But it was not a textbook for my 502 (390). I bought it because I *wanted* it; not because I had to.
And considering the comments I heard from the 502 students who were *supposed*to read it, most did not. In fact, I got the book for $30 “brand-new.” You could tell that the student I bought it from had opened it to the first 5 pages or so, but it had not been read any further. I just knew that by buying it from one of the 502 students would get me a practically pristine copy for a huge discount. As happy as I was that I was correct, it doe make me sad.
So, it seems to me that a lot of degrees might need revoking if reading this book is a criterion for awarding them.
And isn’t reading a book because you *want* to much more honorable (and productive) than saying you read it because you were *supposed* to? Not to imply that you are only saying you read it….
5 Jacob // Dec 30, 2006 at 11:06 am
I hope you enjoy Herodotus. It is surely one of my favorites, right next to Xenophon. I’m just finishing Stephen Mitchell’s new translation of Gilgamesh. Good stuff.