Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do question the list, though -- seriously, FSOG? Twilight? Anything by Nicholas Sparks? Please.
Thanks, now I don't feel like a snob. This PBS list is rather lowbrow. Most of these books will not be read or still in print 100 years from now. Nicholas Who???
Thanks, now I don't feel like a snob. This PBS list is rather lowbrow. Most of these books will not be read or still in print 100 years from now. Nicholas Who???
Obviously everyone's individual top 100 book list will be quite different. Some people read for the use of language, some people read for pure enjoyment, some read to learn and some just read what they like. As for books standing the test of time, like classics, seriously many of them are terrible and never get high ratings for "enjoyment". Those are for the literary snobs
Either way I don't judge what people read I'm just happy of people are reading. Too many people don't read.
Guess I don't care for rankings, competitions, best, worst, American, foreign name-dropping sort of judgments. Got bored doing the personal tally sheet and have no urge to share it. I love to read, get brain thrills out of aspects of most books anyway, and that's what matters.
Guess I don't care for rankings, competitions, best, worst, American, foreign name-dropping sort of judgments. Got bored doing the personal tally sheet and have no urge to share it. I love to read, get brain thrills out of aspects of most books anyway, and that's what matters.
I totally agree...it has no meaning. Wish I'd never started the thread. It's just stupid.
Reading is more than checking off a list....it's fun, informative, relaxing, instructive....on and on positive aspects.
I love to read...and the others on this thread do too. No list needed.
I'm sure PBS's purpose is to get people to read. I kind of think of it like reality competition shows. A show just about how to cook only draws people who love to cook. A cooking show involving competition and voting draws in more viewers, because people like competitions and participatory learning. So - this show about books, which involves voting and thus participating and competing with others about which book is the favorite, will draw in more than just the usual book lovers.
I'm sure PBS's purpose is to get people to read. I kind of think of it like reality competition shows. A show just about how to cook only draws people who love to cook. A cooking show involving competition and voting draws in more viewers, because people like competitions and participatory learning. So - this show about books, which involves voting and thus participating and competing with others about which book is the favorite, will draw in more than just the usual book lovers.
That's a GREAT thing!
You are right....
PBS
Last edited by greatblueheron; 05-24-2018 at 03:57 PM..
Yes, I agree that it's great to encourage people to read, but life is too short to waste it on a crappy James Patterson novel.
Snicker snicker....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's just stupid. 
