News Feeds-
Entries
Commments
- Search
News Feeds
Entries
Commments
Wil Wheaton's latest Geek in Review column is Five Books Every Geek Should Read.
Here's the short version:
Share:
| Posted by John on Thursday November 02, 2006 - 12:20 AM
| Category: Books
| © 2006 SF Signal
Okay, so what does it say to me that I read all those books long ago? :-)
Posted by Michael A. Burstein on Thursday November 02, 2006 at 7:59 AM
It says that you're way ahead of Wil Wheaton. 
What does it say that all the books are at least 14 years old? Is the newer stuff less essential? Does a book need to stand the test of time?
Posted by John on Thursday November 02, 2006 at 8:07 AM
I would sub in Stephenson's Cryptonomicon for Sterling, and perhaps a good Heinlein (The Moon is a Harsh Mistress or The Puppet Masters) for the Douglas Adams.
Otherwise, no major arguments (although I have to confess with some small amount of shame that the only Asimov SF I have ever read was one Lucky Starr juvenile. I just have never gotten motivated to take on the Foundation or Robot series).
Posted by JohnL on Thursday November 02, 2006 at 10:11 AM
The day I take literary advice from some second-rate ex-ST actor is the day I toss out my SF collection. My "every geek should read" list is a heck of a lot more extensive than this small corner.
Posted by Fred Kiesche on Thursday November 02, 2006 at 10:45 AM
Fred, Wheaton may be an ex-ST actor (I'll leave the question of how good an actor he is to others), but he does have geek street cred at this point. And John did note that the list is the "short" version, whatever that means. Also, since he has a large readership on his blog, he may very well be helping those books -- and SF in general -- get a boost. So while personally I also probably wouldn't go to him for advice on what to read, I hope others choose to pick up those books based on his recommendations.
And for my own part, I have to admit that Neuromancer didn't grab me as much as Snow Crash.
John, I doubt that this list means newer stuff is less essential. It just means the newer stuff hasn't had as much time to percolate into the collective consciousness.
Posted by Michael A. Burstein on Friday November 03, 2006 at 6:49 AM
Michael, by "short version" I mean the bare bones list; Wheaton elaborates on the titles in his post.
Posted by John on Friday November 03, 2006 at 7:17 AM
What does it say that John is still reading Wheaton's blog?
Posted by Scott on Friday November 03, 2006 at 7:33 AM
Actually, this is a post to another blog to which he contributed. But yep, I subscribe to his blog's RSS feed. And I'll be the first to admit that while I initially jumped on the "I hate Wesley" bandwagon (without even being a die-hard Trek fan, mind you) I have since found his posts to occasionally be honest, geek-infused and refreshing.
Posted by John on Friday November 03, 2006 at 7:40 AM
Oddly enough...I loved the "Sprawl" stories (including Neuromancer), but have never been able to get past the first chapter or so of "Snowcrash".
Stephenson did not hook me until "Cryptnomicon". The Baroque Cycle is one I've read twice through now.
Posted by Fred Kiesche on Friday November 03, 2006 at 11:11 AM