Yesterday the Troppo boys, Mark and Ken, wrote interesting posts on the ABC book thing. Here are The Top 50.
Today The Age mentions it too.
Readers of this newspaper, probably more than most, understand the enduring power and value of the written word.
While The Age is busy smugging it up, others understand the the enduring power of research.
THE ABC's 100 favourite books poll has been thrown into question after an unknown author and Christian minister beat literary greats to get near the top of the list.
The Rev Col Stringer -- who has his own ministry in Queensland -- beat Emily Bronte, J.D. Salinger and C.S. Lewis to finish 12th with his 800 Horsemen Who Changed the World and 29th with "Fighting" McKenzie Anzac Chaplain.
His books fared better than J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Tolkien's The Hobbit and Little Women by Louisa May Alcott.
Tens of thousands of Australians voted for their favourite book via SMS, fax or email and the results were aired on the ABC on Sunday night.
Publishers yesterday questioned the validity of such polls, saying they had not heard of Stringer.
Nielsen BookScan, which tracks books in 85 per cent of booksellers but not religious stores, had only recorded seven sales for Stringer's books since December 2002.
Mind you, Tony, Stringer's books can't be any worse than "Bored of the Rings", can they?
Posted by: John R | 07 December 2004 at 15:21
Ahhh, finally I've found a kindred spirit, John.
I thought I was the only person on earth who found LOTR a stone bore. Whenever I say I don't like them I get looked at like I'm some kind of deprived kiddy, like there's something wrong with me -- "YOU don't like them!?!?! You just HAVE to read them!!!!!"
Then when I say the films (the first one and a half, anyway) are dull, I get met with a patronising -- "What do you expect, you haven't read the book."
That's right. I haven't. Read. The. Book. Hint. Hint.
PS: Stringer's book is probably awful, too.
Posted by: Tony.T | 07 December 2004 at 15:30
Welcome, kindred spirit. I think the books are the most over-rated, hippy-trippy, look-at-how-mystical-I-am, mind-numbingly boring, pseudo-religious crap I've ever had the misfortune to read. I ploughed through the series in about 1968 when I was very young, foolish and stoned, and all because a girl whose pants I wanted to get into said they were "fab" (a word of the times, m'Lud). I read 'em, told her they were indeed "fab", but struck out badly in the pant-divesting stakes when she gave her favours to a muscle-bound fellow whose only previous reading experience was Enid Blyton's "Famous Five are Sick in the Car". Maybe this is why I hate the book so much ... no, it's just crap.
Posted by: John R | 07 December 2004 at 15:49
I'll go a step further, I've never read them or watched the movies because the idea behind the whole thing bores me to tears.
Posted by: Adam 1.0 | 07 December 2004 at 16:33
I am in vehemenent agreement with all of you. LOTR is dull. The Hobbit, on the other hand, was v. v. good, and I'm a great fan of the films.
Posted by: TimT | 07 December 2004 at 19:22
Isn't The Hobbit and LOTR the same series / thing / idea / vein type affair?
That's twice I've used vein tonight.
Thrice.
Famous Five are Sick in the Car, though. Now that's a book I'd read.
Posted by: Tony.T | 07 December 2004 at 22:19
It sounds like this poll was being run by the same folks who are in charge of our American elections. Or else that Stringer guy just voted for himself a million times. I'm sure he has nothing better to do.
As to LOTR, I happen to like the books myself, but I think that's largly because I read them with my dad when I was really young. These days I find you have to skip some parts--like entire chapters describing endless battles (which is about half of the second volume). meh.
Posted by: vague | 08 December 2004 at 06:08
I reckon he put the word out to his parish, Vague.
Re LOTR, you might be on to something there. I'd never heard of it until I was in my twenties, so perhaps I came to it too late. And the battle in the second film went on forever. So much so, I had the DVD on fast forward.
Posted by: Tony.T | 08 December 2004 at 08:48
I like(d) LOTR. I first read it in 1974. Every now and then I read it again, but the gaps between readings are getting larger. It seems each time I start to read it lately, another bit annoys me. The movies are OK, nothing special. There's a couple of mildly amusing dwarf-tossing jokes hidden away in there.
Posted by: Dirk Thruster | 08 December 2004 at 15:19
The only bit I read annoyed me. And the fillum made me drowsy.
Posted by: Tony.T | 08 December 2004 at 17:14
Yeah, The Hobbit was the first book, the one where Tolkien came up with the concept of 'Middle Earth'. He extended it in LOTR, added new characters, concepts, etc.
Tolkien thought LOTR was his best work. C.S. Lewis thought it was far superior to his Narnia chronicles. They were both wrong.
Posted by: TimT | 08 December 2004 at 19:16
You cranky old gits.
Posted by: Yobbo | 09 December 2004 at 04:59
Cranky and git I can handle. Maybe even the old, but enough of the you.
Or something like that.
Posted by: Tony.T | 09 December 2004 at 09:17
There's a story from when Tolkien was part of a group called the "Inklings" - like-minded Oxford writers and academics(including CS Lewis) who met regularly to read eachother extracts from what they were currently writing.
So at an Inklings meeting Tolkien launches into the latest LOTR chapter, only have some old Don groan "Not more fucking elves!". Which were pretty much my thoughts on wading into the thing. Give me TH White anyday.
Posted by: Nabakov | 12 December 2004 at 15:45
I know not this TH White of whom you speak, Nab, but I certainly concur with the Elves of Fucking.
Was LOTR popular 60 years ago? You know, before read their books on a big screen without words.
Posted by: Tony.T | 12 December 2004 at 15:52
Tony,
I think TH White is one of the most sadly neglected authors around. He was a mid-20th century English hunting, fishing and hawking medievalist with an incredibly broad and wide-ranging mind and many strange pets.
He wrote a very eclectic collection of books, from "The Age of Scandal", a hilarious account of the eccentrics, crazies and celebrities of Regency England, to "The Goshawk" the best book about falconry ever to macabre short stories.
His masterpiece was the "The Once And Future King", a fantasy that made "LOTR" look like a bunch of cardboard cut-outs in a muddy ditch. It tells the legend of King Arthur, complete with all the mythic and supernatural elements like gryphons and witches but curiously twisted and funny with it - and with characters like Robin Hood popping up. It brilliantly humanises all the characters so you see them as real people and not as the solemn, ernest figures of legend.
There's a good little site about him here.
And no I don't know if LOTR was popular 60 years ago. I'm not that old.
Posted by: Nabakov | 12 December 2004 at 16:27
OPENS EYES WIDE IN 'MAZEMENT!!!!!!!!
I've heard The Once And Future King is a a superb book. In fact, it's by a long way the favourite book of my best friend in WA, who sadly has Motor Neurones, but who's been exhorting me to read it for years. I would have, too, if I'd spied it in my cheap local bookshop.
I guess I just better get it of the inti-net thing.
With the popular bit I meant, was LOTR a big seller before it was whacked up on the big screen for mass consumption. And also so that everyone can say they've read it, even though they haven't.
Posted by: Tony.T | 12 December 2004 at 16:37
I was suprised at Rev Stringer's success, so much so that I got a copy of both his list charting books.
I actually found them quite thought provoking and fresh.
I think independent artists and writers should be encouraged but I guess it's easier just to ridicule and pisstake anyone you've never heard of.
Peer pressure can be a very powerful force on the insecure.
Posted by: Zane j | 27 April 2006 at 11:31