National Geographic's 100 Greatest Adventure Books of All-Time!

If you're like me, you enjoy adventure stories -- survival stories -- stories where an individual's life is on-the-line or hanging in the balance. True-life adventure stories make for incredible reading. They're frequently page-turners, nearly impossible to put down and that, I suppose, is how the name "cliff hangers" came about.

I first became addicted to adventure stories after hearing Jim Rome interview mountain climber, survivor, and author, Joe Simpson on his sports talk radio show, The Jim Rome Show. Listening to Simpson describe the extreme hardships he endured, the unbelievable measures he was forced to take to battle for his life, and what it was honestly like to be so close to death and facing your own mortality, was enthralling. The climbing-rope controversy surrounding the decision made by Simpson's climbing partner, Simon Yates, only increased my curiousity of "Touching the Void" and I rushed out the very same day and bought Simpson's wonderful book. It took me all of one day to finish the book, and I have re-read it three times since.

Simpson's journey led me on a survival story reading binge which continues to this day! I recently finished reading Anne Applebaum's 2004 Pulitzer Prize winning "Gulag: A History" which is a different kind of survival story, but none-the-less captivating. Ultimately, "Touching the Void" led me to all of Simpson's other books, as well as to Jon Krakauer's harrowing personal experiences on Mount Everest in 1996 which are detailed in his book "Into Thin Air." From there, I quickly found Krakauer's "Outside Magazine" articles and his vivid account of the life and struggles of Christopher McCandless in the tremendous biography "Into the Wild."

All of those books are fantastic, and TLH certainly recommends them to anyone interested in the adventure/survival genre. Which brings us to this week's list. Here's National Geographic's 100 Greatest Adventure Books of All-Time which is a fantastic reading list, and was compiled back in 2004.

Thomas Friedman's "Hot, Flat, and Crowded"

Thomas Friedman's new book, "Hot, Flat and Crowded" has received a pretty big response from a wide variety of reading groups, but no group has focused on the book more than people interested in exploring the major issues affecting our world and our environment at this point in the twenty-first century: global warming, over-population, disease, famine, the socio-global economy.

TLH has not read the book yet, but it's definitely on the "TO DO LIST." It has been widely discussed on different blogs and in different scientific and literary forums, including RichardDawkins.net.

One blogger and active critic of Friedman's book (and of Friedman himself) is Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi, who has a rather scathing critique of Friedman on his blog site. Take a look here:The Smirking Chimp.

1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die

The Internet is filled with book lists and, if you're anything like me, you've seen a bunch of them -- some are good, some are not so good -- and then there are the ones which are truly valuable. The "1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die" is definitely a keeper.

The 1001 book List charts the progression of the novel through history, and that is its main concern. Accordingly, you won't find Shakespeare's plays listed, since the focus is on the novel. You will, however, find a long list of very good contemporary fiction; and a compilation of tales which moves the method of story-telling and narrative technique forward (Aesop's Fables), backward (Martin Amis' "Times Arrow"), and -- in some cases -- attempts to do away with it all together (see Samuel Beckett).

Here's the link from "Listology" for your perusal:

1001 Books to Read Before You Die.

Bill Moyer's PBS Journal & "Playing for Change" by Mark Johnson

Here's PBS correspondent Bill Moyers talking about producer and co-director Mark Johnson's remarkable documentary Playing for Change. The video has an incredible, trans-National rendition of "Stand By Me" presented through different cultures and different musicians ranging all the way from Santa Monica, California, to Russia and France.

Johnson's documentary deals with the subject of the transformative power that music holds in people's hearts and lives, even in the face of our nation's and the world's devisive religions and politics. "Playing for Change" delivers a creative and powerful message.

Moyers has been doing fantastic writing, reporting, and journalism for decades, and this is yet another fine example. "Playing for Change" is from October of 2008. It is informative, dramatic, and reflective of the essence of music, people, and life around the world during the first decade of the twenty-first century.

Literary and Religious Hypocrisy: The Last Street Fighter by Wayne Normis

For someone who, in the preface of his book, boldly claims to be telling the story of the last of California’s “street fighters,” Wayne Normis goes out like a punk; not only as a street fighter, but as a writer as well. Normis’ The Last Street Fighter (2002) is not convincing as the story of an ex-gang-banger turned minister, nor should it be considered convincing as a tool for born-again religious conversion.

The Last Street Fighter does not present a story that in any way relates to the realities of society's gang problems; and its anti-moral relativist, anti-secular humanist arguments do not stand up to scrutiny with regard to blaming the 1960s counter-culture for paving the way toward our present-day social problems.

Put simply, Normis' book is dogmatic and his Christian "morality" is delusional, rather than objective. It does not present anything close to a rational, open-minded alternative to the pro-religion, ex-gang-member-turned-minister ideology that it offers up. If the solution to gang problems could be reached through prayer or conversion rather than education, understanding, and hard work, then perhaps the United States would have already solved the problem. If the problem were as simple as leaving a gang and becoming a minister then there would not be a problem. However, prayer, and religious conversion are not the answers--not for gang members, not for many people. The book's ideology has enough hard-work answering its claims and accusations, let alone answering for American society since the 1960s.

The Last Street Fighter presents more questions than answers. Normis' story of Christian conversion is no credible answer to street-thugs, as it springs-forth from the tradition of the largest historical "gang" in world history (the Christian Crusaders). The idea that Normis posits his ministry as an answer from God can be effectively counter-balanced by examining a story such as that of Joe Holman who is a minister-turned-atheist, or by examining the topic through open, scholarly discourse, such as the debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath on October 11, 2007 which was sponsored by Georgetown University, and is presented here by Fora.tv.

Granted, the debate was held years after The Last Street Fighter was published, but the book, too, is an anachronism. Part of its deception is that it is presented in the form of an autobiography which details the life of a young white boy growing up on the streets of Southern California in the 1970s and 80s. Normis experiences the pains of racism, violence, and the difficulty of understanding the complexities associated with growing up in a multi-cultural neighbourhood. He attempts to learn the lessons of race and to understand that not all people of any one race are entirely bad and, to some degree, this message comes through. While Normis surrounds himself with friends of black and Hispanic heritage through activities such as boxing, playing football, and running on his school’s cross-country team, he simultaneously gets dragged into a world centered largely upon a white youth gang called the Hill Side Stoners.

The racial fighting and organized violence which ensues leads to a developing and increasing sense of racial hatred for people who do not fit into his neighbourhood “set.” Normis develops only one of the inter-racial relationships to any depth. His professed love for an African-American girl named Jody, during their first year of high school, ends with the young girl feeling that she cannot handle the racial “soap opera” and with Normis blaming the break up on “the brothers” who pressure Jody to break up with him. This shatters the psyche of young Wayne, and he struggles to find a way to get through the feelings and emotions of losing his first love, even as he is struggling to fight against his gang involvement.

The problems with the book are numerous, and result largely from Normis’ refusal to fully develop the specifics of his life to the point that the reader is satisfied, let alone convinced. Instead, the book's perspective is that of a born-again Christian, and the book's goal is to proselytize. While Normis admits in his preface that “The Last Street Fighter is only a partial autobiography” he also makes excuses for this “partial” treatment by claiming:

“To recount here in detail the upside of my character and the wholesome experiences I had when I was growing up would be to blur the point of this chronicle. Instead, I exhume only the delinquent that I was. I highlight the enormous pull that drugs, alcohol, and violence had upon me as a youth in order to illustrate how the only thing that brought all that craziness to an end was Jesus Christ.”

Tha author says he does not want to “blur the point of the chronicle” yet that is precisely what he does. He refuses to distinguish where the “partial autobiography" begins and where it ends. Why should a reader trust a story by an author who cannot, or will not, distinguish between fact and fiction, especially when claiming that what he's written is autobiographical? The reader should ask himself why Normis isn't being up-front about it.

Having said that, it's not too difficult to see where the lines are blurred. Normis conveniently blends his own story with that of a fictional young gangster named "D.T." and it is D.T. who is truly the last street fighter of the story's title. D.T. is gunned down and dies at the end of the book, while the author is simultaneously experiencing the passion of finding the Lord! How convenient that while D.T. dies a literary death, Normis receives a fictional--and for Christians, literal--"re-birth."

But Normis plays these types of rhetorical games throughout his book. He attempts to rationalize the "religious spin" by stating that he is leaving out “[…] the upside of [his] character and the wholesome experiences […]” in order to try to convince readers he was a “delinquent,” but unless the reader is extremely naïve and inexperienced, Normis fails to deliver upon any serious "delinquency." Instead, he is writing from the perspective of a minister trying to write from the perspective of a street thug.

Here's a video (part 1) which provides a much more realistic and profound look at the gang problem in California during the twenty-first century:



The video doesn't address gang problems in the city of Los Angeles, but it provides a look at how gangs are continually branching out. And California is merely one state in the country. We will look at others.

In his book, Normis attempts to excuse both the "profane" nature of his narration, and maintain a "PG" rating for his story. That would be fine if Normis was writing fiction like a children's story or re-creating one of the many violent stories from the bible, but he is attempting to link his past gang problems with the social problems of the present in a 2002 book, and he inaccurately portrays both eras! He writes,

“For the readers to whom my narration may sound rough and profane, I have done my best to present it in compromise form out of respect for those members in the community of faith and for my family. For the gangsters and those living on the edge to whom this book will sound PG rated, it is. To communicate with all readers, I have chosen not to give the “R” rated version.”

Intelligent readers know better, and need not allow Normis to have it both ways. The fact is that his story does not communicate effectively in any one area to be convincing at all. If an author is going to present himself as 1) among the last street fighters in California history, and 2) as someone who was saved through the glory of God, then the reader has the right to expect that both claims will be presented sincerely.

The Last Street Fighter leaves readers doubting whether or not Normis even has an "R" rated version of the story to tell, but if he does, it no longer matters because his position as a born-again Christian will not allow him to tell it. What Normis does relate is a story that is horribly naïve. It avoids personal responsibility, "white washes" the historical build-up of contemporary gang problems, scapegoats an entire generation of people, and lies about the role that Christianity has played in this country's history. To address this complaint, the author simply writes, "I have left the old me behind."

Normis tries to explain away his insincerity and the story’s "PG” vagueness when he states, “To compare war stories and narrow escapes would be to glorify violence. I wish only to glorify God, who is the reason I am still alive.” And it is because of this that The Last Street Fighter cops out on three fronts: 1) by refusing to tell a convincing gang story, 2) by hiding and obscuring the degree to which it is a “partial autobiography” and 3) by offering religious conversion as a solution to the social ills which plague gang members in the inner cities. It is as though Normis has moved from reportedly dodging gang fights, to explicitly dodging details and the truth.

Furthermore, The Last Street Fighter is disingenuous to the real-life gang violence of the twenty-first century. It is a presentation of a gang life long extinct (unless the story is read solely through D.T's perspective) and it is self-serving when considered in the light of its obvious religious agenda. This agenda is evident through Normis' website, which is advertised at the end of the book. And, just like his book, the website provides God, prayer and the Supernatural as the solution to violence and social problems, and Normis (via his ministry) as a legitimate way out of the gang life. However, the author’s bible-beating and verse quoting does nothing to provide pragmatic answers for problems which reach even the most religious of locations:



Simply put, Normis’ details are missing-in-action, and the overall impact of The Last Street Fighter is a book which feels rehearsed (and not well), fictional (rather than hard-hitting) and stereotypical to the genre rather than specific to the lifestyle. And Normis' attempt to use religion to cover this up will simply not work for most readers.

In The Last Street Fighter Normis tells us not to compare his “partial autobiography” with other street-stories, but it is impossible not to, if sincerity is something that matters to you as a reader. Normis’ book was published in 2002, but it is written about an era far removed from reality. His reliance on simplistic labels and gang names like "the Stray Dogs," "Varrio Loco Town," "Varrio Camino Valley," and the "Hill Side Stoners" does nothing to lend credibility to his account. The names are so obviously generic that they give credence only to the fact that Normis admits “names have been changed.” Gangs such as “The Piranhas” and “The Green Gangsters” make a brief appearance in the book's final chapters, but the threat they represent is overwrought, melodramatic and laughable. Normis' use of trite names and generic descriptions ring hollow, and give the book an inauthentic feel as a whole.

Ultimately, it is nowhere near as impressive, forceful, or convincing as the crushingly accurate, gang specific and neighbourhood-inclusive autobiography of Sanyika Shakur’s gangster tour-de-force Monster. Shakur, formerly known as Kody Scott, set the bar for gang autobiographies at a very high level. When compared to Shakur's book, Normis’ effort falls flat.

Here's a brief 2001 interview with Sanyika Shakur(courtesy of BET and Streetgangs.com) where he explains his gang nickname and asks people to "overstand" the gangster mentality:



Since being released from prison, and since the time of the 2001 interview, Shakur has experienced more trouble associated with his gangster lifestyle, as is evident in this 2007 Los Angeles Times article.

Anyone who has spent time studying gangs or reading widely in the genre of gang-related literature will come away from Normis’ effort feeling extremely dissatisfied. Books such as Always Running by Luis J. Rodriguez, My Bloody Life and Once a King, Always a King by Reymundo Sanchez, and even Inside the Crips by Colton Simpson deliver a literary beat-down upon The Last Street Fighter. Inside the Crips was so accurate, in fact, that it actually helped convict Simpson in a 2003 jewelry heist.

Not only is Normis’ book shallow and insincere as an autobiograpy, but even its creative parts do not measure up to gangland fiction like Yxta Maya Murray’s Locas. What's more, Normis fails to write anything about the long, complex and colorful history of gang influence throughout American history. Anyone who has seen the movie The Gangs of New York understands the gang problem on a more profound historical level than does minister Normis. Instead, he skips right to the 1960s and blames secular humanists.

The sense of dislocation between Normis' book and the reality of street gangs is immense. But Normis' aim is not to portray a gang story accurately, it is to blame his adolescent problems, and the problems of all Gen X'ers on the counter-culture of the 1960s, project it out as if it is responsible for all of today's problems, deconstruct the idea of moral-relativism, and convince his audience that religious faith is the solution. And yet even in this purpose he is hypocritical. Initially he writes,

"In the 1960's, the generation, called the 'baby boomers', radically changed our culture. They accomplished much that was good and absolutely needed. They saw the hypocrisy of an America that espoused equality, but at the same time held on to its old prejudices and racist social structures, its gender inequality. They saw the hypocrisy of a nation that preached faith and family, yet engaged in an "illegal" war in Vietnam. They protested against those wrongs, and their voices were heard. Some very important changes occurred for the better in our society: new and stronger civil rights laws were passed; the Vietnam War was brought to an end; women discovered their power.
Unfortunately, in their rebellion the 60s generation rejected everything from the previous generations, including faith, family, and morality" (241-42).

The positive achievements of the 60s generation--even the ones which Normis himself admits--are glaring! Yet Normis' last line is instrumental in how he truly feels about the baby boomer generation. He essentially throws the baby out with the bath water. He takes the idea that the 60s generation rejected everything and uses it to build a case for religion solving all of America's problems. He also uses the accusation to build outright lies:

"In the 1960s, when the United States Supreme Court rendered a turning point decision that removed prayer from America's public schools, our society also threw out God. In effect, the U.S. Supreme Court turned its back on the Judeo-Christian heritage that this nation was built upon. As a result, what we have today is revisionist history with a secular humanistic interpretation. Common statements of faith have been edited out of our founders' writings, including the public warnings and woes that were declared and announced should our nation turn its back on its historical faith. It is no longer politically correct to declare that our country and its constitution are based on Judeo-Christian principles" (243).

What Normis fails to mention is that prior to 1776 nearly all major forms of government were patterned on those set forth in the Bible. And that the American Revolution was a rebellion against that type of government. It rebelled against the English monarchy, where all powers of government were concentrated in one individual, and where religious freedom was non-existent. This English monarchy laid claim to "the Divine Right of Kings" which is the form of government we overthrew and rejected when we beat-back the British, overthrew King George III, and built our Constitution. Furthermore, the idea of the separation between church and state came about as a direct consequence of the times in our nation's history when one group of Christians began persecuting another (the Puritans versus the Quakers). But then history is a problem for minister Normis, and his blind religious adherence fails to understand that a nation of Christians is not the same thing as a Christian nation!

What Normis fails to mention is that the United States' fore-fathers were a group of Deists and secularists--not Christians--and that in 1787, when the fifty-five authors of the original Constitution gathered in Philadelphia to write the document, they adamantly refused to pray when they hit snags during Constitutional deliberations. What Normis doesn't say is that there is not a single reference to Christianity, Christian principles, The Bible or Jesus Christ in either of the two documents upon which our country was founded--the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Declaration's phrase "...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is a reference to the Deist Creator, not Christianity. The original Constitution mentions the idea of religion one time, and it is a negative reference! Amendment 6, clause 3 states:

"[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

What Normis fails to mention is that the First Amendment states that government shall be neutral in the matters of religion, and not partial in favor of the Christian faith. What Normis doesn't say is that in his 1821 autobiography, Thomas Jefferson delighted in the fact that the writers of the Constitution were actually "...protecting the infidel of every denomination." What Normis refuses to admit is that Jefferson did not believe in Christianity, and openly admitted as much many times! In a letter to John Adams in 1823, Jefferson stated that:

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

What Normis doesn't bother to state is that in
1957 the phrase "In God We Trust" was placed upon American paper currency from the $1 dollar bill to the $100 dollar bill. The phrase is a generic reference to the God of Deism, and not the Judeo-Christian God. There is a HUGE difference between Christianity and Deism (but you won't hear that from Wayne Normis).

In fact, here's an entire video of interesting items which Normis "conveniently" forgets to mention:



Normis' charge of revisionist history is, in fact, correct; but it is not secular humanists who are guilty of the revisionism. It is the religious right in this country: the fundamentalists, the neo and paleo-conservatives, the religious zealots, the Christian dominionists--and all who support them--who empower a unified dogma which justifies military adventurism, soils our Constitution, sanctions and rationalizes torture, and promotes aggressive Zionism. It is the Christian followers who patronize these dominionists by ignoring their fanatic radicalism, accepting their propaganda, voting for their constituents and putting them in power, which--ultimately--threatens to turn our freedom-loving Democratic Republic into a Theocracy.

Finally, in the context of September 11, 2001, and on the last pages of The Last Street Fighter, Wayne Normis accuses secular humanists of clinging to a moral relativism which--he says--leads to the belief "that there are no moral absolutes"
(245).

Apparently, minister Normis fails to see the moral relativism and hypocrisy inherent in the Bible, and in his religion itself. While he rails against the Hippies and baby boomers of the 60s generation, no doubt remembering (l Corinthians 11:14): "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?," he seemingly forgets the long list of Biblical statements which run counter to true morality and what he called the "very important changes [which] occurred for the better in our society" during the 1960s.

A small sampling of Biblical quotations which run counter to the Civil Rights era:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak” (1 Corinthians 14:34).

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God” (Deuteronomy 22:5).

“But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking” (Matthew 6:7).

“Let not yours be the outward adorning of braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of fine clothing” (1 Peter 3:3).

“But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39).

And a few hypocritical references to God himself:

God is all powerful: (Jer 32:27/ Matt 19:26); God is not all powerful: (Judg 1:19).

God is unchangeable: (James 1:17/ Mal 3:6/ Ezek 24:14/ Num 23:19); God is changeable:
(Gen 6:6/ Jonah 3:10/ 1 Sam 2:30,31/ 2 Kings 20:1,4,5,6/ Ex 33:1,3,17,14).

God is just and impartial: (Ps 92:15/ Gen 18:25/ Deut 32:4/ Rom 2:11/ Ezek 18:25);
God is unjust and partial: (Gen 9:25/ Ex 20:5/ Rom 9:11-13/ Matt 13:12).

God is warlike: (Ex 15:3/ Is 51:15); God is peaceful: (Rom 15:33/ 1 Cor 14:33).

Other outrageous contradictions, hypocritical statements, and examples of religious relativism from the Bible can be found here for all who wish to read them for themselves.

In conclusion, Wayne Normis posits moral relativism as a kind of ultimate evil or a version of hell when he writes, "[...]how can we continue to buy the idea that, 'What's wrong for you may be right for me?' We can pray that moral relativism is on its last legs" (246), yet he doesn't touch on the Christian version of hell at all, a version which Robert Ingersoll defined as the myth which represents "[...] all the meanness, all the revenge, all the selfishness, all the cruelty, all the hatred, all the infamy of which the heart of man is capable."

More than seven years after September 11, 2001, I would invite minister Normis to join the world of the twenty-first century and to understand that the religion that is so wrong for me, is also wrong for him! I would invite him to put away all of his out-dated and biased religious propaganda, his prejudice, prayer and delusion, as well as his version of hell and--instead--become part of a working solution to the educational, social, political, economic and racial problems which plague the societies of our species--problems which organized religion only exacerbates as it works to destroy our world--for indeed, God was created in man's image; it was not the other way around.

Comparative Lit. & Upcoming Book Critiques

TLH is working on two new book crtiques for this week. The first will be on Wayne Normis's 2002 book The Last Street Fighter. Normis is an ex-street-thug turned minister who writes about his experiences growing up on the streets of Los Angeles, California during the 1970s and 80s.

He gets caught-up in a white street gang and writes about the affect this experience had upon his youth. His drinking, drug use, and the struggle to control the violent urges which plague him all take a toll on his psyche, his relationships and his life. Normis eventually sees "the light," finds the lord, faith, and a new way to live. We'll discuss Normis' book, religion, and what it means to find the lord.

For those wishing to read an excerpt of the book online, you can check out Normis' confessed "partial autobiography" by accessing the book at: The Last Street Fighter. You can also link to his website through LastStreetFighter.com.

The second critique will be on Jon Ronson's book The Men Who Stare at Goats (published in 2005). If you have not heard of the book, you've been missing out. It deals with the United States military and some of the "experimental" training which was implemented during the late 1970s and beyond. You can get a taste of the book through Jon Ronson's website.

The Men Who Stare at Goats is also being made into a movie directed by Grant Heslov, and starring George Clooney, Kevin Spacey, Ewan McGregor, and Jeff Bridges. TLH's sister site, The Media Hammer, has a humorous literary mash-up which examines the book and the Coen brothers' filmography in its "Friday Night Media Mixer" segment (posted on Saturday, December 14, 2008). Go and check it out...it's good for some serious laughs, and some decent comparative lit. analysis too!

Both books were read and researched last week by the TLH staff, and we'll bring you a multi-media, in-depth look right here at TLH. Join us!

Granta Magazine's Best 100 Books of 2008

(Image courtesy of Granta magazine

Granta magazine, the self-proclaimed "magazine of New Writing" which is published out of London, has released its Best 100 Books list of 2008, and The Literary Hammer took notice.

While some of Granta's picks are standard issue, there are several others which may surprise you. I have to admit that I have been a regular subscriber to Granta for more than 10 years now -- ever since I was turned onto it in graduate school by one of my college professors. The magazine was part of the course syllabus back then -- definitely "required reading" -- but this literary quarterly is still required reading if quality literature is something which is important to you. I can honestly say that I have enjoyed my subscription ever since. I look forward to receiving each issue; I have never been disappointed with any issue I have received, and it's definitely a bargain to subscribe rather than simply buying it off the shelf.

Although the writing offered up in its pages is of an extremely high quality, it is the variety of writers and writing style which keeps me coming back. Most of Granta's contributors will be well-known only to readers who make a habit of keeping current with contemporary world literature. The variety of tone, style, topics, and writing voice is unique to every issue. In fact, I've sometimes heard people use that against Granta, but you won't get any of that here at TLH. Our advice? INVEST!...you won't be sorry!

Below is the link to Granta magazine and to their Best 100 list, although I plan to keep a permanent link on this site because of the great respect I have for the product that they put out. It is truly an OUTSTANDING Literary Quarterly!

http://www.granta.com/Online-Only/Books-of-the-Year

I hope you'll check it out and share with us your thoughts and views on the Best 100.

Let us know which books you have you read, and which books you enjoyed. Share with us the names of the books you recommend, and tell us a little bit about why you recommend them. Finally, tell us if there are any books on the list which have disappointed you, and whether or not you're familiar with Granta magazine. Your comments and suggestions are always welcome, and we'll be interested to hear your response.

Finally, I will be offering a few of my own reviews in the days and weeks ahead, as I hope to use some of the upcoming holiday time to whittle down the old reading list!

Thanks again for contributing, and for visiting TLH.