Base: All adults | |
| | 2008 |
| The Bible | 1 |
| Gone with the Wind, by Margaret Mitchell | 2 |
| Lord of the Rings (series), by J.R.R. Tolkien | 3 |
| Harry Potter (series), by J.K. Rowling | 4 |
| The Stand, by Stephen King | 5 |
| The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown | 6 |
| To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee | 7 |
| Angels and Demons, by Dan Brown | 8 |
| Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand | 9 |
| Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger | 10 |
More likely a list of books most respondents to the online Harris poll recognized, but not necessarily had read.
Two Dan Brown's on the list? How weird is that? Haven't read either of them, neither have I read nor seen the movie made of the DaVinci Code. Gone with the Wind? I read that 5o years ago after I'd seen the movie -- thought it was a pretty good well written story. Are younger people still reading it? Harry Potter is for kids. I haven't read any of Stephen King's books nor seen any of the movie versions. To Kill a Mockingbird -- a very easy read -- every kid who attended high school probably read at least part of it. Atlas Shrugged -- tough slogging for the casual reader. Catcher in the Rye? I read it as an adult and didn't really get why it became a cult favorite -- I had the same reaction to The Lord of the Rings, although I loved the movies.
This is poll is about as accurate and meaningful as most of the other polls breathlessly reported in the media.
6 comments:
If one was to ask what is the most popular book people actually read, I'll bet The Bible sinks like a greased safe.
While I don't think the Potter series is for adults, this particular adult finds it very readable. And, if one is to qualify the list as popular & read, then I'll bet this goes to the top of the list.
I read the LOTR while in High School, and loved it. I revisited the series when the movie trilogy came out. Unreadable, dreck. Consequently, that the movies were plodding, unwatchable, plot device ridden, dreck came as no surprise.
One of my favorite books -- still in the Literature section of most book stores -- is Red Sky at Morning.
I've read it about 10 times. I think it is time to do so again.
And introduce it to my son.
I liked the LOTR movies because I grew up on fairy tales and still like the idea of alternate universes, elves, magic and good conquering evil.
Viggo Mortensen's king was also a big draw. He was cast perfectly. Of course, he's a terrible actor and a worse analyst of the political scene, but with those cheek bones, he was very easy on the eyes.
I confess to not knowing, "Red Sky at Morning," but I just ordered a used copy from amazon.com for one red cent! Gosh, I really love the internet.
I hope you like it as much as I do.
If you don't, I'll mail you something from my library to make up for it.
Skipper, your library is safe. I very much enjoyed, "Red Sky at Morning" and was saddened to learn that Bradford died in 2002 after writing only one other book.
His self-deprecating way of expressing himself is amusing even when describing serious events and his observations of the human scene are perceptive and honest.
My take on the book may quite a bit different from yours. You read it first as a boy and probably identified with narrator. I read it as a charming tribute to a father, (his I hope) and it affirms my theory that the father or father figure is the most important factor in a kid's life, both boys and girls.
IMO the father in the book, like fathers in real life, was successful because he had the qualities of strength, integrity, a sense of duty and a sense of humor. He treated his weak wife with courtesy and affection and didn't expect her to be what she couldn't be and he demanded the same of his son whom he knew to be capable of becoming the man he wanted him to be -- and the boy didn't disappoint him.
I wish this kind of father for all the children of the world.
PS: I googled Bradford and found this. It's a wonder that any kid who went to public school ever chose to read another word once he was safely away from academics.
My take on the book may quite a bit different from yours. You read it first as a boy and probably identified with narrator. I read it as a charming tribute to a father ...
You are right -- I read it first at 17, and have always seen the book from that point of view.
Of course, though I hadn't thought of it, that isn't the only thing going on.
Thanks to your comment, I am going to have to re-read it.
I was going to start on it last week, but it was in my daughter's room. I wonder what her takeaway is?
I'd love to know if you read it differently now that you're the father and not the son. Your daughter will probably read it much as you did as teenager. Today's girls don't see themselves as different from boys as most girls did in my day (the 50's).
Tell her she's lucky in her choice of a father. Would that all kids were so well served.
Post a Comment