I never heard of The Dice Man.Where is Name of the Rose?
That was unpleasant to read. Not so much because of the books themselves as because of the patronizing tone the writer of the article uses to write about them. Some books (DIANETICS, THE FOUNTAINHEAD) may deserve disdain, but most on that list deserve better than the snarky condescension they received.
I've got two words---Carlos Castaneda.
I'm only up to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and I think at least a dozen of the books (so far) are better referred to as "enduring classics" than as "cult books."And it doesn't get much better. I think this guy is batsh&t crazy, frankly.
Let's just say that he and I don't agree on what a "cult book" is.
Just want to point that those comments in the article aren't by a single person. It's by a group of reviewers who sign each piece with their initials. I agree about the pointlessly snide tone.
Right, it's a group effort. I think someone needed to decide on the definition of a cult book that agreed more with my definition, though.
I certainly have difficulty with the notion of cult bestsellers that have a steady enough following to remain in print. The Spock citation might just be the most ridiculous. Now, if Mao's "red book" had been included, outside of the PRC, I might be likely to agree.THE STRANGER by Camus: "Strange but true: George W Bush read it on holiday when he was President." Unsurprising but apparently true, if one knows 1) anything about his family and 2) that his wife was a teacher used to working with adolescents. I can't imagine a recognized classic W would like better.
Post a Comment