Talk:Great books

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 2006[edit]

I think the note about Adler's refusal to admit books by "black, hispanic and women" authors needs to be clarified. Clarify that there were woman and hispanic authors but not as many as critics would like. There were African authors but not African-American. If we're going to cast dispersions on Adler's reputation we should at least be accurate.

I do not think these articles ought to be merged; Great Books as an intellectual movement is something related to but separate from the idea of a core liberal education. There also ought to be added a section on Leo Strauss.

The articles here focus on two very different lists. The Core Curriculum is just that. It's a Core list used by Columbia to provide a foundation. The Great Books list is the entire curriculum. It's the full program used at St. John's College. If it was meant to be one in the same, it would be presented by the schools as such. Maybe a better way to consolidate these programs is to talk about it from an educational experience perspective. "These are different approaches to teaching original western literature to students..." --jtowns 15:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since no-one has commented in favour of the merger in tow months, I am removing the merge tag. The curricula are rather different. --Duncan 10:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hemingway?[edit]

Don't you think Hemingway deserves some spot on this list? It's almost been a hundred years and i think his books still resonate. I think that at least one novel deserves to be on the list as one of the great modernists.

--Hemingway? Maybe, but it's all subjective. Some people feel Hemingway being omitted is criminal, while others (such as myself) feel the apparant omission of Victor Hugo and Alexandre Dumas is unfortunate. But like I said, the idea of a "Great" book is entirely subjective - so pursuant to the criteria that this list was composed, they just didn't feel the aforementioned authors merited inclusion.

Eastern World?[edit]

Are there equivalent or similar lists for works from the Eastern traditions? Could/should articles or sites with more globally scoped lists be linked to from this article? Jamal Wills (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are, if you are still looking. Robert Teeter runs a very nice site on "Great Books" and great and good books. It comes up first if you just Google his name. Anything in particular you are looking for? Chriscr (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critique?[edit]

I currently go to a Great Books college and am surprised not to find to critique of the "Great Books" as being a bunch of dead white males. I'll try to find some resources and invite anyone else wishing to add that to join the conversation. ~libertyblues

There have been very fundamental criticisms of the whole "Great Books" educational program (by John Dewey, Sidney Hook, and others), and I am surprised that this article does so little in acknowledging these. My own view is that Great Books panders to the prestige value of certain writers, to the detriment of examining intellectual issues. It does not make sense, for example, to study books by Karl Marx without devoting adequate time -- say a semester -- to the social and political issues of 19th century Europe. The Great Books program races through history, with an eye only on fashionable "greats" in those years. I think (and I think Dewey and Hook thought) that this program is profoundly anti-intellectual. Cognoscente18 (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

The site www.thegreatbookslist.com is merely a front-end to Amazon and Google Ads, so it was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.87.99 (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second link from the bottom is described as "A traditional great-books reading list." I don't think that description is either fair or complete. The page in links to is a list that includes comments suggestion that no intelligent or well-educated should learn Spanish (though it does allow for Italian), that there is no satisfactory reason for an "Anglo-Saxon" person to learn significantly about non-white peoples around the world or US minority cultures. It seems to have a racial separatist and/or borderline white supremacists bent. The parent site (which I can no longer find) had prominent leaks to the racist Charles Martel Society website. Someone wishing to learn about the Great Books might even find it useful but there are better list all over the web. Chriscr (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thegreatbookslist.com[edit]

I think this is an excellent list. I like it. The link that was removed I mean. I think maybe you should restore it. But I don't know. It's very difficult to find reasonably concise lists with near unanimity regarding the selection and a balance among many different regions and time periods. But I think this list essentially does this with a very convenient and attractive presentation. 129.15.106.29 (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furman University[edit]

The article lists Furman University as having a great books program. I cannot, however, find any reference to this on their website. If no one can provide any reason to keep it, I will remove it from the article. --Harel Newman (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusive Great books programs[edit]

I think it's important distinction to make a distinction between true great books programs and partial great books program.

Shimer, St. Johns and Thomas Aquinas are exclusively great books programs, while most of the other schools listed on this page have great books programs or aspects but are not true great books schools. The experience of going to Shimer or St. Johns is entirely different from reading great books at a school like U of C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.47.130.147 (talk) 04:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography[edit]

Addition to the bibliography. A Great Idea at the Time: the Rise, Fall and Curious Afterlife of the Great Books by Alex Beam (NY: Public Affairs Press, 2008), 245 pages. Book reviews http://www.wickedlocal.com/manchester/fun/entertainment/books/x1049855903/North-Shore-Book-Notes-A-great-book-about-the-Great-Books

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/11/a-core-curriculums-changing-fate/ rumjal 02:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

See Also[edit]

You may want to add a link to the Harvard Classics which also seem to sport the title "The Great Books," or perhaps a link to this book review which uses said phrase. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/books/review/Nazaryan-t.html Rumjal --rumjal 09:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

Missed works[edit]

I think you missed very important works, since you are really accurate only about Anglo-saxon and French literatures.
Firstly you've missed the provencal poetry, which is the base of European poetry.
Then, you've missed the Italian authors which were the most popular of Europe during Renaissance and more: Petrarca, Boccaccio, Ariosto and Tasso. Moreover, you've missed the Spanish drama of Siglo de Oro, especially Calderòn. And also Goldoni. Both were models for Lessing. Finally, you've missed Goethe's Werther and Affinities!!! Remember: Western culture is not only Anglo-saxon and French. 95.224.205.211 (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the Introduction[edit]

I’m not sure where the reference to black, Hispanic and women authors is coming from? Did you mean the article on The Great Books of the Western World? Adler did say in a 1990 interview, “They didn’t write any good books” in reference to black authors. Not Great Books, good books. Also, the lists from early and later editions of "How to Read a Book" are combined in this article. Not sure what the different editions looked like. Chriscr (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adler's list of "great books" included all of Dickens' writings and all of Cicero (presumably including their juvenalia), but only two women authors for the nineteenth century: Jane Austen (only Pride and Prejudice and Emma) and George Eliot (only Middlemarch). In addition Adler was notorious for his rude and hectoring behavior in discussions. Mballen (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed reorganization[edit]

As it stands, this article is kind of a mess, and has been for a long time. It switches erratically from discussing the general concept of Great Books (and specific reading lists), to discussing the educational method that developed out of the early-20th-century initiatives at Columbia, Wisconsin and Chicago (inter alia). IMO there are better places on Wikipedia for discussing both the concept of the Western canon (or literary canons in general), and the minutiae of specific Adlerian or other list(s), and this article should therefore focus more tightly on the educational/curricular aspect. I am working on a rewrite with this goal in view, which will also clean up some of the WP:EL and WP:WEIGHT issues in the current article. Would welcome any suggestions/thoughts. -- Visviva (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shorten EL section[edit]

Many of the external links go to universities, etc. that sponsor Great Books reading programs. Instead of the link farm, a section discussing these various programs, with the links used as references, should be developed. --S. Rich (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is the solution we should be working towards. Tillander 05:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We should do this provided there are reliable sources showing that these are notable for this specific article instead of articles about those universities and not just as a way to get around Wikipedia's rules against linkfarming. Certainly it sems doubtful that trivia about each specific university belongs here. In the meantime I removed the offending links. DreamGuy (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. Those had to go. -- Visviva (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Offending links indeed! I just now used the Sidney Hook EL as a reference to support his 1946 criticism of the St. John program. Is it so terribly difficult to take these ELs and use them in the text? No! So why do wholesale deletion of the section? By leaving them "as is" editors who'd like to improve the references in the text can access them readily. But if the section is missing, it means going back to an earlier version to find the EL. Not too difficult, but a nuisance. Alright, I'll tag the section as "In use". It'll take a few days, but the ELs will be improved and used in the text. Editors who wish to contribute to this process are welcome to do so. --S. Rich (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just move them to the talk page? All of the accessibility with none of the WP:EL violation. (Personally, I don't think the institutional links qualify as RS with respect to anything but themselves, and the others mostly seem like promotional/SEO spam, but YMMV.) -- Visviva (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. The UC banner encourages other editors to contribute to the process - they will miss it on the talk page. 2. The list is more accessible. 3. This process won't take too long.--S. Rich (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a big deal, I suppose; I just seem to be unusually grumpy today. Carry on. -- Visviva (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shorten? Remove it completely, then start over following WP:EL. The attempt to incorporate them into the article without independent, reliable sources demonstrating they deserve inclusion is creating violations of WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and WP:NOTCASE. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV? SOAP? etc.? I wonder. If there was a List of universities and colleges providing Great Books programs would such a stand alone list be objectional? We ought to consider Wikipedia:Make articles useful for readers and WP:RF. Such is the goal of my effort. Thus far 15 of the original 27 ELs are either gone or improved to be used as references in the list section. More work is needed. And I'll continue. Moreover, the rest of the article needs work. Any volunteers? --S. Rich (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)00:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe such an article could be maintained unless there's some authoritative sources to draw from. --Ronz (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Ronz and DreamGuy on this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not a link farm.--Coolcaesar (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure Ronz and DreamGuy are making the same point. Ronz does not like the idea of any links, while DreamGuy wants to avoid trivia. In any event, the EL section, as it now stands, is 5 of the original 27. (The Dorfman piece might be incorportated as part of the article, which can bring us down to 4 ELs.) The subsection on the universities does not trivia in it. (Stuff I would call trivia would be number of students, faculty, timeframe of study, department heads, etc.) At this point I posit that the EL linkfarm has been properly pared, and the rest of the article can be worked on.--S. Rich (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My concern on the links is that they clearly had not been reviewed against WP:EL and editors repeatedly added them back when removed without reviewing them. My suggestion was to remove them all and only add back ones that actually met the relevant policies/guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2007 merge suggestion

The suggestion has been made to merge two topics: "Great Books" and "The Great Books Foundation." Though related by birth (Mortimer Adler had a hand in founding Great Books of the Western World and the Great Books Foundation), the two topics are significantly distinguished in purpose and therefore should not be merged. The term "Great Books" is often used to describe a movement to promote a canon of literature that is mainly Western and non-contemporary. The Great Books Foundation is an educational organization that promotes the experience of discussing literature. This experience is enjoyed by many hundreds of Great Books groups that do not confine themselves to discussing the Western "classics" or Great Books of the Western World, for example. The experience is also the focus of the Foundation's K-12 reading and discussion program, Junior Great Books, which features some Western "classic" literature but also literature that is international, contemporary, and very "multi-cultural." If the purpose of the Great Books movement is to promote a Western canon of literature and ideas, the purpose of the Great Books Foundation is to help people discuss and learn from literature worth reading, regardless of its source. /Steveciii 21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion rationale

It should just redirect to Talk:Great books. I don't know if it can simply be moved, so I'm asking someone who really understands these thing. Thanks.--S. Rich (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Rationale regarding the fix of a redirect not a deletion. Now resolved.--S. Rich (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Use of GBs in elementary/secondary schools

Some editors want to add info about the use of great books in one particular school in San Diego. No WP:RS has been provided for this information. Besides the lack of WP:V, these edits are problematic in terms of WP:TOPIC. – S. Rich (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Move from Great Books

I saw that the article title was recently changed from "Great books" to "List of books considered the best". My impression was that these were the list of books specifically in the Great Books Program. If this is the case, I think either the original article title should be used or moved to "Great Books Program". The new title, while consistent with the films article, breaks the connection with the Great Books Program name. Other thoughts? Bahooka (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

At the very, very least, this was an extremely bold move and should be reverted until discussion is had (ping @Discospinster:). Also "great books" is the WP:COMMONNAME (give or take "program"). czar ♔ 02:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The article mentions "Great Books of the Western World", Thomas Jefferson's collection, the "Great Books Program", the lists from How to Read a Book, etc. and no indication that any of them are related. The article List of films considered the best is a similar collection of movies that others have deemed to be "great". What is "great books" a common name of? Is it a title or a trademark? Calling the article "Great books" sounds like it's the opinion of Wikipedia editors. ... discospinster talk 03:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It's straightforward from how the phrase is used in the titles of the sources. It's a term used to refer to "classics" programs with set collections of literature. Your page move edit is contested, please revert it until we've found consensus. (Also, for what it's worth, the article doesn't indicate that these program lists see their book selections as "the best". It's curriculum design.) czar ♔ 04:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Merged from Talk:List of books considered the best after incomplete move–merge czar ♔ 22:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rather acknowledge "List of books considered the best" should be a separate page. It's different from any program or what a minority say are classics (don't forget the whole audience – and the other Lists or best/worst). Therefore it's not appropriate for a real list of 'best books (considered)' to be not recognized while redirected to this "Great books" article or assume it's the same thing. Btw, most books are NOT from or contain Western culture. Is anyone getting this? Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:6594:3843:DA62:C33E (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

I'd entertain a move to something like "Great Books programs" if we're going with the proper noun form now (instead of "Great books"). It would more accurately cover the topics at hand, which are Great Books programs and not conceptions of a definitive set of great books. czar ♔ 22:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I think the section "Television" has a misleading name. I understand why it is called that, but I think a more adequate title could be "As Seen in Television" or something similar. Franciebenjamin (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Francie Benjamin[reply]

"Controversy" Section[edit]

Hi all. I'm new to editing Wikipedia articles, but on reading this page for Great Books, I can't help but notice that the "Controversy" section seems to contain a non-NPOV, specifically with a level of false balance or "bothsidesism." The section offers what appears to be purely opinion in response to critiques of the Great Books with no references to external parties who make these counter-critiques/responses. Shouldn't the "Controversy" section stand alone without denial or rebuttal of the listed criticisms? On a different note, this section feels under-filled given the large body of academics who have opinions on this matter. Thanks, and let me know if I misunderstand the NPOV/False Balance concepts as they apply to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.115.231.12 (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Great books. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Great books. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Great books. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated that this article relayed its message in a very concise manner. It remained neutral while not drifting from topic all that often. Nothing was out of date, as this was an article . It did a well job of showing the progression of literature, these "Great Books," in a chronological manner. It made for a nice conclusion that it eventually approached modern times, in which these books were the topic of television series. It was evident that in some particulars it would be beneficial to add a citation, three specific places had already previously been referenced. The talk page goes to show the precision that the previous editors hoped for in this article, elucidating much of their intentions through discussion. I'm lead to believe this is a credible article. --TheJymy (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tone and balance evaluation: The article centers thinkers and ideas which shaped the origins of the evaluation of Great Books in the Origins section of the article. The article contains a very small section on the controversy of Great Books, which is perhaps under-represented in the overall composition of the article. The Series section of the article includes a block-quote justification from the founder of Great Books of the Western World, Mortimer J. Adler, in which he defends his reasoning for not including more diverse literature and authors into the Great Books canon. His justification is based on the standard of books' relevance to the 102 great ideas, and the great ideas themselves are unexamined and undefined within the article. While the article does not, in tone or syntax, attempt to persuade the reader I find that the article under-represents the controversy of Great Books. By deferring to the defense of Adler, and by not providing a link or explanation of what constitutes Great Ideas, the article does not provide enough information of what underlies dominant distinction of Great Books. As Great Ideas are supposedly the determining basis of what constitutes Great Books, I think defining Great Ideas is important for the context of this article. The absence of this information is a weakness of the article, overall. — Booksbodysoul (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing sources[edit]

There are a lot of missing sources in this article. In the controversy section, it mentions that "many" people were outraged over the lack of diversity, without specifying who was outraged. The same thing happens later in the article with discussing reactions related to Allan Bloom's publication. The section tends to focus on the description of the book, rather than who were voicing these reactions. I would recommend adding relevant sources that voice these certain reactions. Hlkilbourne (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_books&oldid=1173638485"