Ask HN: What's the "best" book you've ever read?
I got asked recently, and I think it's an excellent question.
What's the "best" book you've ever read? By "best", in means whatever you mean.
What's the "best" book you've ever read? By "best", in means whatever you mean.
979 comments
[ 5.6 ms ] story [ 365 ms ] threadBooks are not oranges.
And who ranks their oranges?
As an aside, what do you mean by this? I would have an even harder time giving and answer to the best orange I've eaten.
The Hobbit. My brother read it to me when I was just starting to read. When he was done I asked him to read it again. he said no and I learned to read in earnest. I was often shooed out of the adult section of the library. I have read lots of books by now.
That books are not a commodity.
That said, as the author alluded to, 'best' in this context is vague and can mean what we want it to, eg., person a may consider best to mean the book that has had the widest influence, where person b may consider it to mean the book that they personally found the most insightful, etc.
It's a damn shame we haven't figured out how to coerce citrus like we do tomatoes.
And yet, there are many answers to that question in this thread.
I was a ridiculously voracious reader (if I saw it, I wouldn’t put it down until I’d read it) and my answer was always “hard to say, no favorite.”
But then one day you read that book that stands out from everything else (to you, for various personal reasons that might not translate the same for the next person) and suddenly, just like that, you have a favorite book.
I wish you will discover this feeling one day!
Some are soups made by your grandmother while you sat in a high-chair and your parents laughed and talked with your uncles in the living room.
Some are the smell of coffee and bacon and eggs and a little more smoke than usual in the air in the morning when your dad cooked breakfast.
It's okay to have a special and favorite book, just like it is okay to have a special and favorite food.
The Engineers Notebook by Forest Mims really taught me the basics of electronics.
What do you care what other people think by Richard Feynman(1988) introduced me to the idea that nobody is really as much of an expert as you might think.
1632 By Eric Flint, and the subsequent series, got me thinking about the nature of civilization and all the things that go into making it.
There are a lot of books in this world, and they all helped author who I am.
I spent hours as a kid, slowly parsing, contextualizing, researching every iota and minutiae of that book.
I had an encyclopedia just to help supplement that book.
[1] https://archive.org/details/waythingswork0000unse_p9x7/
Fiction: Project Hail Mary
Book 1 is really hard to get into and doesn't reward as much. But if you stick with it, as early as the end of Book 2, you'll know what you're in for.
If I had to return and re-read, I’d re-read “Leonardo da Vinci.”
Seriously though, this question is unanswerable, but your answer is probably one of the few books I'd get behind as an answer to this.
— Douglas Hofstadter, I Am a Strange Loop, p. 363
"I Am a Strange Loop" by the same guy covers the same concepts, albeit without the whimsey or color.
(I also enjoyed Joyce the one time I read him, so it's possible that I can just appreciate a good slog...)
But the whims and color were the best things about the book!
I also appreciate that I learned a lot of tangential things mentioned in the book that had nothing to do with the mind or consciousness.
Its translations are also the best translations known to mankind (I read the German one, the French is said to be as good or better).
It is an incredible argument that will just utterly transform how you understand a walk down the street.
If you’ve been seeing references to the Land Value Tax (LVT) here on HN, this is the book that originated the concept. Like most conceptual breakthroughs, it didn’t emerge solely from George with no related ideas in the vicinity, but this is definitely “the book” behind it.
“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.”
Most people haven't read it, and tend to only reference things like "invisible hand", and skim/skip over a lot of Smith's 'moralizing'. His book before Wealth was after all The Theory of Moral Sentiments:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments
If you don't want to read Ye Olde English, perhaps see Glory Liu's book Adam Smith’s America:
> Drawing on a trove of illuminating archival materials, Liu tells the story of how an unassuming Scottish philosopher captured the American imagination and played a leading role in shaping American economic and political ideas. She shows how Smith became known as the father of political economy in the nineteenth century and was firmly associated with free trade, and how, in the aftermath of the Great Depression, the Chicago School of Economics transformed him into the preeminent theorist of self-interest and the miracle of free markets. Liu explores how a new generation of political theorists and public intellectuals has sought to recover Smith’s original intentions and restore his reputation as a moral philosopher.
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/60015569-adam-smith-s-am...
Interview:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbQjDpUfJrs
She goes into the "Adam Smith Problem"; one paper on it:
> Adam Smith is best known for his economic theories that extoll the free market and individual self-interest. These ideas are the focus of Smith's second book, The Wealth of Nations. However, Smith also made large contributions to the fields of ethics and moral philosophy. Nearly 20 years prior to the publication of The Wealth of Nations, Smith first became a renowned moral philosopher when he published The Theory of Moral Sentiments. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith outlines the nature of morality. This morality, for Smith, places an emphasis upon sympathy and compassion, which are felt by imagining the plight of others through the impartial spectator. This impartial spectator is a mode of thinking that allows for one to adjudge the actions of others in relation to society's general attitudes toward that said action. Despite Smith's consummate rumination in both books, there seems to be a disconnect between Smith's moral philosophy, found within The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and his economic philosophy, found within The Wealth of Nations. How can Smith eulogize compassion and fellow feeling in one writing, while also holding that self-interest is necessary for the advancement of society in another? This disconnect is known as the Adam Smith Problem. The purpose of this project is to acknowledge the existence of The Adam Smith Problem by seeing it not as an attempt to undermine Smith's intellectual continuity, but as a challenge to reconcile the self-interested nature of humanity with higher moral standards accomplished through compassion. This reconciliation is accomplished through the notion of a liberal society in which an individual is both free to do anything that does not harm another and can expect society to maintain a higher set of moral standards through a justice system. Both wealth proliferation through self-interest and the upholding of higher values through compassion are predicates of this liberal society: the culmination of Smith's philosophy.
* https://quod.lib.um...
You don't draw too much of a distinction, but Moral Philosophy and Economics are two distinct and separable subjects. Comparing them is comparing apples to oranges.
The former lies solely within the mind and in ones own choices, where one is free to choose, whereas the latter is largely based in observation of external dynamics where continued survival is contingent upon said system.
Additionally, at the time of writing there were many observations made, and the process of boiling down to correct principles is an iterative process. What few seem to realize is Adam Smith's Labor Value Theorem was foundationally flawed (but everything else had great impact), LVT was disproven later (Subjective Value Theorem by Carl Menger iirc), but is still referenced and in use today by Marxists and other related groups.
To contradict that last wall of text, who decides what constitutes harm? What definition is being used for this? If one does not properly define what they mean, they can be right (in their head) because definitions are fluid and contradictory encompassing all possible circumstances while having absolutely no meaning.
Many people call these types of communications insanity or madness because they provide no value or benefit. These are also common talking points/structures found in Socialist and Communist propaganda which don't represent the entirety of the subject or authors, let alone in a rationally principled way.
It was a strange experience to read ye-olde-English that outlined observations that still apply today.
To simplify it, in my mind it was like going to the moon (boring old economics book) and discovering someone else’s flag (we beat you to it, and everything we explain is still relevant)
The observations can also be correlated with subsequent changes to give us a better understanding of how things work and progressed, as well as potentially destructive changes we've made moving forward to our systems of organization.
The transition to Fiat currency, or taxation for example, I have no doubt, will eventually provoke a study and comparison as to why inflationary currencies should never be adopted, or only with severe restrictions.
There are many concepts found in the book which are correct, there are several which are also very flawed and dated. Labor Value Theorem for example has been rigorously disproven as a viable framework through Menger, Hayek, and Mises (iirc).
A society which has no education on these subjects is ill equipped to have to direct policy, or hold policy makers accountable for destructive actions (which may take years, decades, or sometimes half a century, in their cyclical actions).
The first required step to correcting a problem is in being alerted to the fact that there is a problem, and societally we've really screwed this up with the advent of social media (many:1 platforms that drown out useful signals).
Feedback systems that can no longer respond to correct stimulus are broken systems just waiting for the right circumstances for calamity.
It's transformed my worldview as well, if nothing else by underlining that free markets and capitalism are not the same thing at all.
Even more impressive, it’s obvious you haven’t even read a decent critique or summary of it.
You should consider it! There’s a reason for its stature :)
I have also had the displeasure of arguing with someone who thinks Henry George had the right idea. The dude was literally defending the communist Chinese "property" model which is just a 70 year lease from the government.
Calling my view extreme is like saying that an atheist is religious. Just because I don't accept this idea and all the ensuing conclusions, does not make my views extreme or unreasonable, much less "cartoonish"...
You’ve stuffed an impressive number of misunderstandings into these few comments, but I’m not sure I’ll be able to help you unwind them except to say you should read the book.
The "disagreement about definitions" is the substance of the disagreement. You do not understand the terms that are being used, therefore you do not understand the argument being made.
You say up above that all taxes are just taxes, so a conversation with you about tax policy is bound to roughly a first grade level because you've chosen not to learn what words mean.
That’s a good shibboleth for “never have actually engaged this idea.”
It’s very specifically not based on how you use the land. And that’s literally the core fact of the system. The two calculations yield entirely different incentives. It’s clear you misunderstood it. I recommend reading the book itself as it will be clearer than you’ve apparently had it explained.
Sorry but you are wrong. Farmers and homeowners pay less than investors. If you build expensive stuff on the property (put another way, if you USE it to do something expensive) you generally pay more.
Again, I don't need to read a whole book, much less one based on pure idealism and with no thought given to real economic data and real human nature, to know that it is generally wrong. I don't need to read the whole book here any more than I need to read the whole bible to doubt it. You need to learn about the real world and stop assuming you know better than everyone just because you read an old book. Sometimes a book review is actually enough to get the gist. I even got reviews from people who thought highly of the book, and I was unconvinced.
This is not Land Value Tax. Georgism is an argument against this concept of taxing based on what you do with the land.
Furthermore, it might be necessary to use land for farming or warehouses when it is more profitably used for residential structures. A free market might eventually sort out higher food prices that can cover the taxes, but I think we can all agree that it's better to not arbitrarily increase taxes on a necessity like food.
Why would that be the case? A beachfront plot would likely have a higher value than a plot in a desert or swamp, so the tax levied on the beachfront plot’s value would, of course, be higher. It’s a tax on the land’s value, not a tax on the size of the plot.
The fact that you compared 'prime real estate' to swampland or desert demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of ad valorem taxation and land rent generally. While the rate should be the same (ideally as close to 100% as we can get without causing issues) the actual -value- would be dramatically different.
Under your hypothetical question, the desert and/or swampland could very well have 0 rental value, which means the tax would collect 0 from these locations. 100% of $0 = 0.
GP is woefully confused and so darn sure of it!
By analogy: “I don’t need to read On The Origin of Species because I’m already familiar with the idea that a singular designer made all of life on earth and I don’t believe it! I already know that actually three intelligent designers made everything on earth. No sense in reading Darwin, who is an idiot for believing there’s only one intelligent designer!”
Like it is a satirical level of misunderstanding. To clarify, in case you’ve also listened to a podcast or whatever: Darwin doesn’t argue there’s one designer. George doesn’t argue for property tax.
There’s nowhere for the conversation to go if you think otherwise and are digging in your heels on it, so I’ll just reassure you that you’re exhibiting satirical levels of misunderstanding and frankly shocking foolishness to not be reacting to point blank demonstrations of your wrongness.
>George doesn’t argue for property tax.
I don't think this is correct. But hey, you can redefine words all you want. A tax on land versus a tax on property, it's all just another tax.
>Like it is a satirical level of misunderstanding.
It's not satirical or a misunderstanding on my end as far as I'm concerned. I don't care to continue this discussion either. No matter what I'll say you'll demand I read the book, which I'm not going to do. When I compare it to anything you'll accuse me of misunderstanding something so basic as a tax. No thanks, take it up with someone who cares.
Well, I know you don't think that's correct, but that's because you're wrong. You haven't read George's argument and I have, so we're just not on equal footing here.
> A tax on land versus a tax on property, it's all just another tax.
An income tax is also a property tax is also a land tax is also a capital gains tax, yes? This is one way in which you're wrong.
And no, if you didn't exhibit both a ridiculous misunderstanding and an astounding level of confidence in your ignorance, I wouldn't implore you to read the book. You're obviously welcome to carry your ignorance with pride though, so have a good week!
Unfortunately I don't know if there's an English equivalent, and considering how awful of a language Dutch is to learn it may be easier to learn Japanese, read the originals, and look up all the references yourself.
Curious, why do you think so? As a Russian I found Dutch to be much easier to learn than Japanese, and English knowledge helps. The largest problem by far is Dutch speakers falling back to English almost always.
Because?
But I’ll pick The Psychology of Money. There are few books that have so drastically changed my view of reality and affected my behavior.
(Bonus because I couldn’t help myself: Getting things done, Man’s search for meaning, Surrounded by idiots)
Stephen Ray Gould: Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin: will both challenge every preconceived notion you've had, link seemingly impossibly unrelated phenomenon together using similar models and patterns, and leave with a much more intuitive understanding about complexity, randomness, and chaotic systems.
A Briefer History of Time: For those who truly would like to exalt their personal God of the Gaps to the small unit.
“But in introducing me simultaneously to skepticism and to wonder, they taught me the two uneasily cohabiting modes of thought that are central to the scientific method.”
The Cosmos series, which was on PBS when I was a kid IS the reason I went into science.
I recommend Dragons of Eden especially because it sheds light on how fabric of our culture is woven by old thoughts that are recycled in interesting ways. The Demon Haunted World does a good job at explaining how we have to escape magical thinking and be more rational about how we approach life.
Non-Fiction: The Feynman lectures on Physics.
Fiction: Neuromancer
Non-fiction: The Selfish Gene
Reading the Selfish Gene today as an adult, when you've probably read a dozen similar books already, is not going to have the same effect. It's going to be pretty boring. That's why asking for book recommendations is flawed to begin with.
People are generally enthralled by Sapiens which is just a very mediocre extension + shallow interpretation of Dawkins’ thesis.
The importance of The Selfish Gene is to write a correct summary of the neo-Darwinian project. In the future (perhaps even now), it will be more famous for the coining of meme (in an appendix IIRC).
However, The Extended Phenotype is a remarkably original exposition of important (then) contemporary frontiers of Darwinism. It is a powerful idea, powerfully described.
It is certainly his most important original contribution to the literature. And a beautiful book. True and convincing. It will change your view of the world. There is no higher praise.
Also,
Bill Bryson’s “Short History of Nearly Everything”.
Brian Greene’s “The Fabric of the Cosmos” (and all of his other books)
Richard Dawkins’ “The Ancestor’s Tale” and “The Blind Watchmaker” are also amazing.
Fiction:
Adrian Czajkowski‘s “Children of Time” and Orson Scott Card‘s “Ender’s Game” are both anong my favourites.
It's fine that it's hard to answer, or the answer changes. The goal is not to actually determine the correct answer but to explore the possible answers and the reasoning that produces them, and the differences that different people produce.
I've tried twice to read this, but it looses me about 10% in for some reason. Is it worth continuing past that? Does it get "better"? Or does that just signal that the whole book isn't for me?
I think that was my problem with Burning Chrome. Every sentence contained a new word or three that the reader is supposed to guess by context or conversation. Combined with something that read like stream-of-consciousness narration. I literally had no idea what was even happening after 30 or 45 minutes of reading.
But then I had the same problem with Shakespeare, so maybe I'm just dimmer than most folk.
IMO the first part of the book is peak cyberpunk vibes. In particular I read it almost like I would read poetry, late at night when I can't sleep, sometimes jumping back and forth between pages.
Then I read a big plot summary I found online and read it again and I really enjoyed it.
Also, there is an excellent BBC audio drama made from the book. It's on Youtube.
I'm starting to feel old on a more and more frequent cadence.
Thanks for your understanding. :)
Likewise, your other example of “what’s the best food you’ve ever eaten” is a lazy question… but I bet the answers would be really interesting.
Fiction: I dunno but maybe "Anathem" by Neal Stephenson.
I think Anathem is Stephenson's best. The Diamond Age is also really good. For every one of his books, I just wish he could write an ending that matches the quality of the rest.
Hard to choose for me, but I might cast a vote for the Baroque Cycle, although I love almost all of his science fiction as well.
Fiction: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Non-Fiction: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_...
Probably one of the few books (the series that is) I could read on repeat and still laugh out loud from.
I agree it's one of the best books out there.