Just for fun, here’s a list of them. As it happens, they’re also books I want to finish reading but keep forgetting to, or doing something else instead. In no partcular order (actually, the order in the pile):
Books to finish
- Miles Kington, How Shall I Tell The Dog?
- Oliver Sacks, Musicophilia: tales of music and the brain
- Stephen Fry, The Book of General Ignorance
- Stephen Fry, The Book of Animal Ignorance
- Steven Mithen, The Singing Neanderthals: the origins of music, language, mind and body
- Robin Dunbar, The Trouble with Science
- Seth Lloyd, Programming the Universe: a quantum computer scientist takes on the cosmos
- John D Barrow, Impossibility: the limits of science and the science of limits
- Rodney Huddleston, English Grammar: an outline
- Barry Green, The Inner Game of Music
- Andrew George (trans.), The Epic of Gilgamesh
- Eknath Eswaran (trans.), The Upanishads
- Stephen Fry, Stephen Fry’s Incomplete and Utter History of Music
- Roger McGough, Collected Poems
Some of those are books I’ve started, some I’m half way through, some I’ve nearly finished . . . and maybe some aren’t exactly for finishing, since really they’re for dipping into.
Actually, one of the most interesting of those is also one of the most demanding to read: the grammar book. It’s not, as you might imagine, a guide on how to write; it’s a very concentrated analysis of how English grammar works, and I see that on the next page I have a section which starts
Constructions involving a non-finite as complement of the predicator exhibit a great deal of diversity and complexity; they present formidable problems for the analyst—and it is not surprising that widely varying accounts are to be found in the literature. One problem is this. The prototypical complement is an NP, which is why we speak of the occurrence of non-finites in complement function as involving nominalisation.
All of which does in fact make sense, but it’s not the kind of material that effortlessly goes into the brain, especially if it’s a few months since you were last reading the book and need to remind yourself what a predicator is and what is or isn’t being nominalised, i.e. being treated like a noun. Let’s just say that once we start looking at how English grammar actually works, it makes languages like German with nice, rigid, clearly-defined rules start to look a lot more straightforward than English.
Maybe I’ll focus instead on the Miles Kington book, which has stuff like this coming up (see, I can’t help reading ahead):
People are making a lot of money out of self-help books these days, and I would like you to be one of those people.
By helping to promote my new self-help book.
Which would be about self-pity.
Did you notice in my first letter that I referred to the jumble of self-pitying thoughts I first had when I was diagnosed with cancer?
My immediate response was to be apologetic for this stance, because we are always taught not to be sorry for ourselves, as if there were something dreadfully feeble about it. There are no nice words in English at all for ‘self-pity’. There are lots of disapproving ones. Whingeing, sulking, moping, etc., etc.
(Personally, I think we are entitled to indulge in a little self-pity when we are told we have cancer, as long as we disguise it as something else. Shock, a nervous breakdown, long sobbing fits. Something like that.)
But self-pity is so common that it earns no respect at all, only disapproval, as in phrases like: ‘Sitting around all day feeling sorry for herself,’ or ‘You’d think he was the only one who had ever had leukaemia.’ Which quickly leads to phrases like: ‘Why doesn’t she just pull herself together?’ and ‘Cheer up dear—it’s only bi-polar disorder!’
My brilliant idea would be to turn it all round and treat self-pity as a potentially positive force.
This certainly seems to be a brilliant book, from the 40% or so that I’ve read in its intended order. Miles Kington wrote it in the last months of his life, when he knew that he did in fact have cancer and might well die from it. It takes the form of supposed letters to his literary agent about ideas for books he might write about the situation, but is really a humorous but heartfelt look at attitudes encountered and so on. Very entertaining, but also thought-provoking.
But that’s just one list of books. Here’s another:
Books to start
The main reason I haven’t started the books in this list is that I don’t have them. They’ve been recommended, or mentioned, by other people:
- Paul Davies, About Time
- [I don’t know the author], The Universe is a Green Dragon
- Peter Bernstein, Against the Gods: the remarkable story of risk
- Daniel M Wegner, The Illusion of Conscious Will
Now that’s a much shorter list, but I’ve a nasty feeling that’s simply because of having forgotten to make a note of them all . . . Oh dear. I wonder what’s missing . . .
I have Against the Gods on my list of books to start, but I have at least got it as far as the shelf.
And I admire/am disturbed by your enthusiasm for grammar!
Don’t worry too much about the grammar. It doesn’t mean I’m proofreading everything everyone sends! Not intentionally, anyway 😉
I just think language is amazing. One of the nice revelations in the book was that we often use future tense to talk about past events, and past tense to talk about future ones. For example We’re meeting now, but they will have met yesterday, or The meeting was next Wednesday, but now we’ve changed it to the 28th. (These actually refer to future confirmation that they have met, and the past schedule for next Wednesday’s meeting.)
I like the way that language never quite fits into the rigid rules we make for it. It’s quite subversive.