# Lifestyles & Discussion > Family, Parenting & Education > Books & Literature >  Favorite fiction books?

## Met Income

They don't necessarily have to be pro-freedom related, but I assume they won't be anti-freedom.  Thanks.

----------


## muzzled dogg

atlas shrugged

/me yawns

----------


## Met Income

> /me yawns


Why?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Shogun is good   I'll think of more some other time.

----------


## amy31416

Anna Karenina by Tolstoy
Mark Twain's short stories, along with Huck Finn
Frank O'Connor's short stories
The Naked and the Dead
Live From Golgotha by Gore Vidal
Dorothy Parker's short stories 
The Tin Drum by Gunther Grass

If you read "The Tin Drum", you should then read "A Prayer for Owen MeanY" by John Irving, just because the comparisons are interesting.

----------


## Original_Intent

Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card (some of the sequels/prequels are also good)

Dune, Dune Messiah, and Children of Dune by Frank Herbert (more were written that really went down hill imho) Frank Herbert's son also wrote some prequels that are OK.

Two Crowns for America can't remember author

The Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan the first three or four books were incredible, but instead of wrapping it up in a seven books eries like originally planned, he got about a bazillion sub plots going and didn't get the alst book written before he passed away. Last book is currently being written by another author.)

I've read probably 500 fiction books, and there were probably others that I enjoyed at least this well, but these are the ones that come to mind.

----------


## forsmant

Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy series.

----------


## IPSecure

The Great Brain

A Wrinkle In Time

All Original "Hardy Boys"

That is it for 'Fiction'...

----------


## Andrew-Austin

Currently reading "The Night Angel Trilogy" (just finished second book) by Brent Weeks and its damn good. 

The Codex by Douglas Preston 
Siddhartha by Herman Hesse 
For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway
Nano by John R Marlow
Anne Rice's collection of vampire books

----------


## Kotin

I agree with original intent.. Dune is amazing, cant go wrong with Frank Herbert..

I also suggest "Out of The Silent Planet" by C.S Lewis.. its a little known 3 part Science Fiction/Fantasy that he wrote and it is amazing.

----------


## Original_Intent

> I agree with original intent.. Dune is amazing, cant go wrong with Frank Herbert..
> 
> I also suggest "Out of The Silent Planet" by C.S Lewis.. its a little known 3 part Science Fiction/Fantasy that he wrote and it is amazing.


I keep hearing about those by C.S. Lewis - I read Narnia and I think most if not all of his non fiction, but I haven't gotten around to Out of the Silent Planet.

But you did remind me to add The Screwtape Letters to my list

----------


## TruthisTreason

Anthem
1984
Repent, Harlequin! Said the Ticktockman
The Sirens of Titan or anything by Kurt Vonnegut

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I agree with original intent.. Dune is amazing, cant go wrong with Frank Herbert..
> 
> I also suggest "Out of The Silent Planet" by C.S Lewis.. its a little known 3 part Science Fiction/Fantasy that he wrote and it is amazing.


which is your favorite Calvin and Hobbes book?

----------


## LibertyEagle

hehe.

Harry Potter.  

Hey, need a break after reading all those non-fiction books.

----------


## A. Havnes

Erm, most of my favorite fiction books tend to be fantasy ones.  Don't ask why.

1984 - Well, maybe it's not _that_ far from the truth...
Fahrenheit 451
Animal Farm
Lord of the Rings Trilogy
Harry Potter - Does this count as an anti-freedom book, what with the workings of the Ministry of Magic?
Chronicles of Prydain
The Phantom of the Opera
The Hobbit
The Silmarillion

----------


## wizardwatson

The Dark Elf Triology.

Drizzt rocks.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

btw... don't forget to read Oman Ra, everyone.

----------


## DirtMcGirt

East of Eden
Killer Angels

----------


## Kotin

> which is your favorite Calvin and Hobbes book?


hmmm thats a tough one..

maybe Lazy Sunday Book or Scientific Experiment Gone Boink.. maybe even Yukon Hoe! or Revenge of The Baby Sat.. I really cant answer that.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Erm, most of my favorite fiction books tend to be fantasy ones.  Don't ask why.
> 
> 1984 - Well, maybe it's not _that_ far from the truth...
> Fahrenheit 451
> Animal Farm
> Lord of the Rings Trilogy
> Harry Potter - Does this count as an anti-freedom book, what with the workings of the Ministry of Magic?
> Chronicles of Prydain
> The Phantom of the Opera
> ...


On Harry Potter:  J.K. Rowling seems more liberal than libertarian to me, but it's actually a wonderfully pro-freedom book series on the whole:
Harry's respect for established authority gradually and continually erodes over the course of the seven books, and the people running the Ministry are time and again shown to be bumbling, corrupt, and even flat-out malevolent.  Some of the "bad guys" are quite politically well-connected, as well.There are some interesting parallels to the "War on Terror" in the sixth book, and several plot points throughout the series as a whole contain strong pro-freedom messages/warnings (really, the entire life of one particular wizard provides such an example).In addition, there are certain authoritarian/big brother laws (like the decree for the restriction of underage wizardry) that are repeatedly called into question through dubious detection methods and selective/discriminatory enforcement...and it's implied, if not stated, that such discrimination was really the whole intent behind the legislation.There are other laws restricting the mere ownership and usage of certain enchanted everyday objects, but these laws are shown to be pretty silly, and they're repeatedly broken by the curious Mr. Weasley (Harry's best friend's dad).Education is shown to suffer drastically when the Ministry gets involved and meddles with the curriculum and staff at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.Oh yeah, and it goes without saying that regardless of J.K. Rowling's feelings on guns or victim disarmament laws, the Harry Potter series implicitly carry a strong pro-Second Amendment vibe:  Everyone is pretty much armed at all times with a wand, which functions as both a weapon and a versatile tool, and society doesn't descend into chaos.   Whenever someone is shown to be wandless, there's a distinct feeling of helplessness and vulnerability.

I should make mention of three important exceptions, though:
The aurors (wizarding police) are generally portrayed in a pretty positive light, as if they're less corrupt than the Ministry of Magic on the whole.  This probably doesn't reflect real life very well though, so it can give a misleading impression of real-life law enforcement.  Still, it's not a particularly huge deal in the larger context of government's [decidedly negative] role in the series.There's one interesting authoritarian law in the series that Rowling doesn't really seem to question, but I must admit that it makes practical sense for the Ministry of Magic to enforce, and that's the International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy.  Wizards and witches are prohibited from revealing their existence to the world as a whole, and the Ministry corrects mistakes through invasive memory altering spells and an influence over the press.  The reason Harry gets for this law at the beginning of the book is that if muggles ("normal" people) knew, they'd constantly bother wizards and witches for magical solutions to their problems...but I think it's implied (or maybe not?) that the real reason is that muggles would become fearful of wizards and witches and quite literally wipe them out if they were permitted to know of their existence (through sheer strength of numbers and technology).  It's an authoritarian, anti-freedom law, but it *does* at least make some sense.There's a larger problem with the above statute, though:  *It's an international law, and there's an implicit acceptance of the role of the International Confederation of Wizards (like the wizarding UN) in disciplining individual governments which fail to uphold it.*  I don't think this is actually elaborated on in the books proper, but this acceptance of a "government of governments" is still incredibly unfortunate...whereas the British Ministry of Magic is shown to be incompetent and corrupt, the story didn't really provide an opportunity to demonstrate the even greater dangers inherent to international government.

So yeah, there are a few messages (or conspicuous omissions thereof) to be aware of in the Harry Potter series, but on the balance, it's fantastic.

----------


## SnappleLlama

Everyone should read _Battle Royale_.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Everyone should read _Battle Royale_.


Yes, herr llama!

----------


## SnappleLlama

> Yes, herr llama!


Ha, ha!  Well, Bunchies enjoyed it!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Ha, ha!  Well, Bunchies enjoyed it!


My pet bunchies and I have been enjoying Dostoevksy's "The Brothers Karamazov".  Do you like it too?

----------


## SnappleLlama

> My pet bunchies and I have been enjoying Dostoevksy's "The Brothers Karamazov".  Do you like it too?


I'll have to try it again...I picked it up in high school, got through two pages (literally), and then promptly put it down to read _Les Miserables_, instead.  I'll have to dig that Brothers K. out of my bookshelf, now!

----------


## tmosley

> There's one interesting authoritarian law in the series that Rowling doesn't really seem to question, but I must admit that it makes practical sense for the Ministry of Magic to enforce, and that's the International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy.  Wizards and witches are prohibited from revealing their existence to the world as a whole, and the Ministry corrects mistakes through invasive memory altering spells and an influence over the press.  The reason Harry gets for this law at the beginning of the book is that if muggles ("normal" people) knew, they'd constantly bother wizards and witches for magical solutions to their problems...but I think it's implied (or maybe not?) that the real reason is that muggles would become fearful of wizards and witches and quite literally wipe them out if they were permitted to know of their existence (through sheer strength of numbers and technology).  It's an authoritarian, anti-freedom law, but it *does* at least make some sense.There's a larger problem with the above statute, though:  *It's an international law, and there's an implicit acceptance of the role of the International Confederation of Wizards (like the wizarding UN) in disciplining individual governments which fail to uphold it.*  I don't think this is actually elaborated on in the books proper, but this acceptance of a "government of governments" is still incredibly unfortunate...whereas the British Ministry of Magic is shown to be incompetent and corrupt, the story didn't really provide an opportunity to demonstrate the even greater dangers inherent to international government.


It seems to me that without the law, there would be no element of believability in the stories, because we would all know about witches and wizards.  She wanted her readers to feel like it was all real, and the illusion would have a huge hole in it if not for that law.

Of course, I think it would have been better if there were some sort of magical portal that lead to the world of magic (where muggles couldn't get to it), rather than it being on Earth, just somehow unnoticed.  If would be easy to stick in some deus ex machina that would keep the masses at unawares, while still allowing the school to recruit from the outside world.  Hell, one could make it so that magic didn't work on Earth, or just not nearly as well (thus making Harry's ability to use magic without a wand in the first book all the more impressive).

As for me, my favorite book is, and remains, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and the associated books of mythology, especially the Silmarillion.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> hmmm thats a tough one..
> 
> maybe Lazy Sunday Book or Scientific Experiment Gone Boink.. maybe even Yukon Hoe! or Revenge of The Baby Sat.. I really cant answer that.


Hard for me too.   Bill Watterson is probably the most brilliant and criminally underrated comic artist of the modern era. (IMHO)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'll have to try it again...I picked it up in high school, got through two pages (literally), and then promptly put it down to read _Les Miserables_, instead.  I'll have to dig that Brothers K. out of my bookshelf, now!


Reading it aloud helps my bunchies sleep.  Try it for yours if it gets insomnia.

----------


## nullvalu

> 1984 - Well, maybe it's not _that_ far from the truth...


Yep pretty sad when its hard to tell if its fiction or not. 1984 is still my favorite book though.

----------


## Mini-Me

> It seems to me that without the law, there would be no element of believability in the stories, because we would all know about witches and wizards.  She wanted her readers to feel like it was all real, and the illusion would have a huge hole in it if not for that law.
> 
> Of course, I think it would have been better if there were some sort of magical portal that lead to the world of magic (where muggles couldn't get to it), rather than it being on Earth, just somehow unnoticed.  If would be easy to stick in some deus ex machina that would keep the masses at unawares, while still allowing the school to recruit from the outside world.  Hell, one could make it so that magic didn't work on Earth, or just not nearly as well (thus making Harry's ability to use magic without a wand in the first book all the more impressive).
> 
> As for me, my favorite book is, and remains, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and the associated books of mythology, especially the Silmarillion.


You're absolutely correct that the law was primarily a plot device to add believability to the stories...personally, I'm just as fascinated as a little kid at the idea that wizards and witches could be living right under our noses, while we're completely oblivious to their existence.   As far as plot devices go for increasing immersiveness, the statute was great...but considering the point of the thread (pro-freedom fiction works), I still felt obligated to bring it up as a possible sticking point.

I'm a big LotR fan too, though I haven't read it since I was 14, and I have not yet dared to pick up the genealogy book known as the Silmarillion.   I have mixed feelings about some of the messages in that series though, like the implicit acceptance of monarchy and the idea that greatness is inherited through blood (i.e. the Stewards of Gondor are doomed to be "lesser men" than Aragorn for reasons of lineage).  Plus, even Tolkien himself found it somewhat difficult (after-the-fact) to justify the idea that the orcs were inherently wicked as a race and deal with the implications of accepting such a notion (and so he spent some time coming up with explanations as to why the orcs are not necessarily inherently evil, etc., but...).  I mean, I still love the books anyway, but some of the ideas they contain bother me a bit.

----------


## Kotin

> Hard for me too.   Bill Watterson is probably the most brilliant and criminally underrated comic artist of the modern era. (IMHO)


I agree 100% Bill is a damn genious..

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I agree 100% Bill is a damn genious..


Calvin for president 2012!

----------


## LittleLightShining

Every book by Laura Ingalls Wilder
Thomas Hardy and Willa Cather are other favorite authors.
Wicked by Gregory Maguire
Possession by A.S. Byatt
The Narnia series

----------

