More Noted Things

by Cliopatria

Nigel Reynolds of the Telegraph reports two remarkable finds of artifacts going back to the 16th century that have been in private hands.

Readers of the Guardian have chosen a list of 10 books that best define the 20th century. They were chosen from a list of 50 books nominated by a committee of experts. George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four was the first place winner. The list of 10, in order of their publication:

Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists by Robert Tressell
The Great Gatsby by F Scott Fitzgerald
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell
The Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank
The Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Bridget Jones's Diary by Helen Fielding

I confess to knowing nothing about, much less having read, two of the elect. On the other hand, the list entirely misses -- what? -- two-thirds of the world's population. Hat tip.

Mark Greif,"Tinkering," LRB, 7 June, reviews Neal Gabler's Walt Disney: The Biography, Michael Barrier's The Animated Man: A Life of Walt Disney and Tim Sito's Drawing the Line: The Untold Story of the Animation Unions from Bosko to Bart Simpson. Hat tip.

At Open University, Michael Kazin, David Greenberg, and David Bell are discussing our desire for"authenticity" in candidates and how that makes actors attractive.

In light of Great Britain's University and College Union vote to endorse a boycott of Israeli academics, the University of Chicago's Martha Nussbaum's"Against Academic Boycotts," Dissent, Summer, makes the case against them and proposes more appropriate and effective alternates. Hat tip.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

George Robert Gaston - 6/6/2007

With the exception of Bridget Jones's Diary, most of the named books were products of late 19th century men. How do they define the second half of the 20th centry? Could it be that very little of any importance was written after the late 1950s?

Ralph E. Luker - 6/6/2007

What seems inevitable is that any criticism of Israeli policy will draw an attack on its author as "anti-semitic". I say that as one who is opposed to any boycott of Israeli academics. You don't bother to offer any evidence of the inferiority of British science, as if that were relevant. And your citation of Idi Amin is fairly clear indication that, in your mind, any and all external criticism of Israeli policy is tarred by association with all that is foolish and evil. You might want to rethink that for nuance.

samuel rotenstreich - 6/6/2007

What Martha Nussbaum doesn't say is that the movers and shakers in the British academic union are rabid anti-Semites.

Furthermore, Britain scientifically is inferior to Israel vastly advanced science ability. The Hateful Brits are also ignorant. A nice bunch of academics we really can enjoy. They remind me of Idi Amin and his boycott of Israel because they refused to sell him jet bombers. Again, great company Brits!

Melissa Spore - 6/6/2007

It's a wonderful read, though one might need to be in the right frame of mind. Tressel died, various people poorly edited the text and now it's published in its original 600-page entirety. It's long & rambling, but I have vivid memories of the bean-o and lunch times at the worksite.

Andrew Ackerman - 6/5/2007

That book's nothing like it's sequel, The Pressed and Starched Capitalists.