Books You Want Horribly Destroyed.

[Wildcard5]

Any books that are a part of the Twilight series and a couple other less notable "books" Stephenie Meyer has written. Paper thin characters, generic setting, making their vampiric AND werewolf lore dull, the Twilight series deserves to burn for these reasons.

 

[alimarin]

The Quran.

Ha, see what I did there?

OT: No books should be burned unless there is absolutely nothing useful from reading it.

 

[FinalHeart95]

There's some quote that goes something like this (paraphrasing since I can't find the quote anywhere).

"Destroying a book is worse than killing a man. A man only contains ideas, while a book is the source of ideas."

While I don't agree that killing a man is actually worse than destroying a book, I'm going to assume hyperbole was used. Simply put, from books come knowledge. Knowledge can also come from man, but it will often come with more and more objectivity as the knowledge is passed down. With books, you can have the original ideas, on paper, for anyone to access.

Never destroy a book, no matter how vile you find it.

 

[Spy Killer]

Cathcer in the Rye, that book sucked like hell.

and it murdered John Lennon.

 

[ninja555]

The only book I would destroy would be Catcher in the Rye. It's very hard, upon reading the book to see why it is listed among some of the greatest books of all time. Its main problem is Holden. It is very hard to feel an sympathy for him as every page turn you see him digging a bigger and bigger hole for himself. By the end of the novel it seemed he would need a crane to get out of there. All I get from him is, "Wah, everyone hates me, why do they do that, wah, why can't people just like me' and then, 'This people are all phonys, I hate them all, I'm going to go live in the wilderness and pretend to be deaf and mute'. Then there's him and sex. It is clear that he isn't ready so what does he do, call up an easy girl, or talk to a pimp. The deeper meaning everyone talks about is there, you just can't get to it because you can hardly feel for Holden. Fuck it.

As for bad books, I couldn't care less about them. Its just bad books that are considered great literature.

 

[Spy Killer]

1. Anything by Malcom Gladwell
2. The Awakening
3. A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius
4. the Secret Life of Bees

there's a lot more, but this is making my blood boil

Hey, can you tell me what #3 is. I saw a copy of it in the class and was wondering what it was all about.

 

[Chewster]

I don't want any books to be destroyed because destroying books, no matter the quality, is ignorance of the highest order.

 

[Just_A_Glitch]

As an English major, I don't want to actually burn any books. However, I wish Frankenstein would go away forever. Seriously the worst book I've ever read. Wonderful idea, but horrible execution. Mary Shelley should have never picked up a pen. Should have just been the woman in the love sandwich that was Lord Byron and Percy Shelley.

That was a very odd sentence to type...

 

[thublihnk]

This sentiment has clearly been covered in this thread, but I feel I must restate:

Fuck that. Every book is worth its existence, if only as a recollection of the soul that wrote it. I'd sooner give away all my worldly possessions and start from scratch than to allow even Twilight to disappear from the world entirely.

 

[II2]

No burning of ze books on pain of the candiru.

That said, I think it would be funny and terrifying if you threw Twilight into a fire and it simply STARTED TO SPARKLE

 

[RedDeadFred]

[HEADING=1]

Anti-religious bullshit incoming! Take cover!​

[/HEADING]

Anyway, now that that mandatory thingy-majigger is over, I'm going to go for the exact opposite of what I just warned about. I think that Richard Dawkins' The God Dilemma needs to get burned. Why? Because I'm allowed to believe what I want, and having a book calling me a dumbass isn't going to change my mind.

I'm guessing you're talking about the God Delusion, right? I wouldn't say the book flat-out calls you a dumbass, no more then most religious texts do, in fact I saw the God Delusion primarily as a book that explained how morality is an independence factor within human society that shapes religion, rather then vice-versa. This argument, I feel, NEEDS to be brought to light in the modern world. Too many people who feel future shocked are arguing that religion dictates morality, when in fact it's the changing attitudes of social morality that dictates what religion teaches (hence why we don't sell our daughters into sexual slavery, which the Old Testament allows).

I suppose that you have a point.
While I'm most certainly against a lot of things in the bible, my main attachment to religion is simply that I believe there is some form of entity that holds the universe together. I've never read the bible, I don't go to church, but I believe that there HAS to be some form of energy -weather you call it god, karma, science, whatever- that must exist.

Silly? Sure. Impossible? Nay!

Hooray for silliness! Without whimsy and ridiculousness everything would be so boring! (makes me wish I was a Wizard)

Any religious text. Seriously, the world would be a lot more peaceful without religion.

HA! War would exist ether way, and don't destroy books, It's monstrous

Name one war that wasn't Religiously driven or Politically driven (I.E. DEM R TEH COMMEIZ SHEWT DEM!).

All war is political. And every war past 1500's. WW1, WW2, AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, AMERICAN REVOLUTION, WAR OF 1812, French Revolution, and Vietnam War.

Civil wars? Are you serious? That's just idiotic bickering, Revolutions are by the people, for the people. Vietnam war was created by just how fucking stupid some people are. And the World Wars were already stated.

Ok most terrorism is based on religious fanatic views. The World Wars were politics but the war on terror is mainly religious.

Aren't pleny of terrorists just pshycopaths, criminals and certain groups of Anarchists? (Wait isn't a group of Anarchists an oxymoron?)

Ya some are anarchists but the main groups like alqueda (or however you spell that) are the one's who are dying so that their god will give them many virgins when they go to heaven. I'm not saying religion is all bad but I'm certain our world would be more peaceful without it. Mutually assured destruction kind of makes sure there won't be a WWIII. That leaves only the war against people who don't care if they die (terrorists).

 

[Darknacht]

None there is no point in burning books just because you dont like them.

 

[alik44]

The scarlet letter never have i read a book that took so long to get to the point.

 

[Doom-Slayer]

All Twilight books

/thread

 

[Pumpkin_Eater]

Anything by most of the American political pundits and some of the more popular religious texts. Paris Hilton's book for good measure.

Don't burn books because that increases demand for the very titles you're trying to get rid of.

 

[AugustFall]

I seem to remember a certain Extra Credits. Why can't people just ignore things anymore? Why must things always be destroyed for people to get on with their lives?

Grow up, other people like things, you have no right to take these things away from them on the basis that you do not like them.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

ha well since this is satire i can easily go along with it.

just about 3/4 of the books we read in high school. god fucking awful and boring as fuck.

dont even remember half of them but south park did a perfect episode on this in one of there last seasons...good shit, i remember my teacher asking about hte symbolism behind the "fishing pole"....?!@#?!@3 its a fucking fishing pole. who gives a flying fuck. i dont, its fucking boring, let me read something i enjoy *****

 

[Nieroshai]

[HEADING=1]

Anti-religious bullshit incoming! Take cover!​

[/HEADING]

Anyway, now that that mandatory thingy-majigger is over, I'm going to go for the exact opposite of what I just warned about. I think that Richard Dawkins' The God Dilemma needs to get burned. Why? Because I'm allowed to believe what I want, and having a book calling me a dumbass isn't going to change my mind.
Is it really so wrong that I believe in something rather primitive? No sir, no it is not. It may be primitive, silly, all around unlikely, but you know what? It makes me happy. So I reserve the right to believe that there is an invisible man in the sky.

Edit: It's actually called The God Delusion. I apologize to any fans, readers, or devout worshipers of this piece of literature that I may have offended.

I agree on the right to believe in whatever. However, you note Christianity as primitive. Not trying to be a dick at all, just ranting on a point.
Believing in a religion is more than superstition. Superstition is primitive because it is created by one's own imagination rather than genuine thought, and can be disproven.
Nobody has disproven whether there is a god or not, whether there is a soul or not. And a lot of philosophical and logical process goes into apalogetics(defending the validity of the religion). My best example is that psionics fit in with quantum theory, but psionics(the ability of the mind to interact with quantum fields, possibly because the mind is a quantum field) are neither matter nor matter-based energy that can be measured. Yet it affects matter and energy. Is this what the soul is made of? Psionics? A conscious essence that is somehow neither matter nor traditional energy, but influences both?
Whether this is true or not is yet to be found, but is it not a valid science? Therefore not primitive. Admittedly, there are "primitive" christians, but I believe psionics make the soul, and therefore the supernatural, possible as quantum entities.

Actually, I was only calling it primitive because it is referred to as such in Mr. Dawkins' book.

I don't at all believe that Christianity is primitive.

You were being sarcastic. That passed right over my head, didn't it? I was mostly arguing against potential readers' responses to your article though, should've mentioned that. Oh well. That's bridge under the water already. >_> DYSLEXIA, You foul beast!

 

[theevilsanta]

I love Frankenstein, DH Lawrence, and Neil Gaiman. I'm not sure what they did to piss those people off.

I heartily agree with the OP's points about Outliers. My dad (who normally recommends descent non-fiction books to me) told me about it. I was shocked at how unscientifically he wrote about a field that is certainly ripe for real analysis. We aren't talking about abstract, philosophical ideas here, but a very observable phenomenon. Yet he spouts anecdote after anecdote as if that's supposed to support his point. And then he spottily references work done by real sociologists and experts in the field and dismisses them by spottily referencing other people that have done far more work than him.

I mean seriously, is his concept of rigorousness research reading the NY Times Science section once a week and watching a documentary once?

 

[oranger]

If you want to burn books, why not just create a new set of laws called "copyright"? that way, people can own IDEAS, thus keeping them all to themselves with legal protection regardless of consequences, where they came from or what they are constituted out of from the persons surrounding culture/social structures...oh wait...