What is your favorite book & why?

delaney056

My absolute favorite is Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte. I like love stories, and Wuthering Heights isn't the traditional 'happily ever after', ' girl finds her prince charming' love story. And it's a classic!
The 2009 movie adaptation with Tom Hardy is excellent also. Mainly because he's hot ;P

sillygoosie

Life of Pi because to me, it is all about the power of positive thinking. I have probably read it 3 times and it doesn't get old. I can't wait to take my daughter to the movie on Wednesday.

PRMinx

Great Expectations, Charles ****ens. For two reasons:

1. I love the idea that anyone can make something out of themselves, no matter where they come from.
2. Everyone has an Estella.

shell22holmes

I am a Stephen King fan, my absolute favourite book is Bag of Bones be SK.
Jane Eyre is second.

shell22holmes

Great Expectations, Charles ****ens. For two reasons:

1. I love the idea that anyone can make something out of themselves, no matter where they come from.
2. Everyone has an Estella.

Lol @ the fact the bleeped D*ckens

StaceyJ2008

Harry Potter. It's an amazing series and it was extremely enjoyable. I felt like I was part of that world. The Mortal Instrument series is also quite entertaining. I also enjoyed the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. In case you can't tell, I like weird and magical stories.

glitterjam

Geek Love by Katherine Dunn. I have read it almost 10 times, I always get more out of it.

junipearl

Definitely George Orwell's 1984.

I love dystopian fiction and this was by far the most spine-chilling rendition of a dystopian society that I've ever read.

Enkibean

"Stranger in a Strange Land," by Robert Heinlein

TrailRunner61

God Is In The Tough Stuff. It's an inspirational book that has helped me get through some really rough times in my life. I love it.

Touched670

My all time favorite....
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

Love the character Atticus Finch so much that I named my dog after him...always believing in the good in people and not letting others bully him into their way of thinking. He was a fare man and what a great dad. Teaching his children and loving them as all fathers should.
And the bond between Scout and Jem is forever, the way it should be!
And...the villain turns out to be the hero!
What's not to love?

Enkibean

Definitely George Orwell's 1984.

I love dystopian fiction and this was by far the most spine-chilling rendition of a dystopian society that I've ever read.

Man, love that one too...

junipearl

"Stranger in a Strange Land," by Robert Heinlein

This is on my "to read" list.
The list has about 30 books on it so could be a little bit before I get to it lol

lauriem1966

I second the Harry Potter series. I bought them to read to my kids, the first 2 books anyways, and I got so hooked. By the time Prisoner of Azkaban came out I was at the store at midnight, and read the book by 9am...stayed up all night. I miss the Potterverse....I wish there were more.

sillygoosie

Geek Love by Katherine Dunn. I have read it almost 10 times, I always get more out of it.

You are the only other person I have seen that has read this book. It was crazy but I really loved it.

stetienne

Fever Pitch. Love the theme, the voice, the humor.

splashwags

The Power of One by Bryce Courtnay and To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, and How Green Was my Valley by Richard Llewellyn. All three books are incredibly well written stories of coming of age in interesting times. Peekay in pre- apartheid South Africa, Scout in the deep south of the 1930's, Huw Morgan in coal mining Wales

Great reads each of them....

escloflowneCHANGED

The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy, I don't feel I need to explain why!

GamerGurl729

The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy, I don't feel I need to explain why!

This, but I also have many other favorites. It's too hard to choose just one.

cmotting

I LOVE all of Jane Austen's books, but my favorite has to be Persuassion. It is such a beautiful story of love,and I am a sucker. I also love The Giver by Lois Lowry. Brilliant.

Jellyphant

Harry Potter. It's an amazing series and it was extremely enjoyable. I felt like I was part of that world. The Mortal Instrument series is also quite entertaining. I also enjoyed the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. In case you can't tell, I like weird and magical stories.

Harry Potter for me as well! I've probably read each book 10 times, just because/if I have nothing else to read.

WhatDoesLisa

Anything by Bill Bryson or Sherman Alexie. Bill Bryson because he is so hilarious as in tears-rolling-down-your face funny. I like Sherman Alexie's writing and I totally respect his viewpoint. This is from a 1997 interview with him in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/05/magazine/questions-for-sherman-alexie.html?ref=shermanalexie

You have to read his books in the order that they were written or it is hard to follow since he uses recurring characters. I am not of Indian descent but I just love his writing. And I sort of think he would tell me to go F myself but hey I still like him!

gingerjen7

I am a Stephen King fan, my absolute favourite book is Bag of Bones be SK.
Jane Eyre is second.

I'm a King fan as well. My favorite book is The Shining. I love the relationship between Jack and Danny and the exploration of the permeability of the human mind and soul, not to mention the horror of such a thing. I could never like Stanley Kubrick after the way he mutilated such a wonderful story into such a pile of crap.

shell22holmes

I am a Stephen King fan, my absolute favourite book is Bag of Bones be SK.
Jane Eyre is second.

I'm a King fan as well. My favorite book is The Shining. I love the relationship between Jack and Danny and the exploration of the permeability of the human mind and soul, not to mention the horror of such a thing. I could never like Stanley Kubrick after the way he mutilated such a wonderful story into such a pile of crap.

The made-for-tv version, which was truer to the King book is good. Kubrick focused on Jack slipping in to craziness and not the downward spiral of his marriage, parenting, his alcoholism and how those things affected every aspect of his life. I prefer that version over Kubricks.....but I'll still watch Kubricks movie as its a classic.

gingerjen7

I am a Stephen King fan, my absolute favourite book is Bag of Bones be SK.
Jane Eyre is second.

I'm a King fan as well. My favorite book is The Shining. I love the relationship between Jack and Danny and the exploration of the permeability of the human mind and soul, not to mention the horror of such a thing. I could never like Stanley Kubrick after the way he mutilated such a wonderful story into such a pile of crap.

The made-for-tv version, which was truer to the King book is good. Kubrick focused on Jack slipping in to craziness and not the downward spiral of his marriage, parenting, his alcoholism and how those things affected every aspect of his life. I prefer that version over Kubricks.....but I'll still watch Kubricks movie as its a classic.

I did like the made for TV version. The reason the book is so good is because of Jack's relationship with Danny, in my opinion, and the contrast to his father, which Kubrick's version didn't even touch on. And I think it did a poor job of showing Jack becoming crazy, as he really started out the film as an unlikable a-hole who seemed on shaky footing mentally. Also, the characters in the film were so different from the book. (I wish there were a way to put spoiler tags up for those who haven't read it).

In the book Danny is incredibly bright and also has his special gift; in the movie, he seems almost as though he has an autism spectrum disorder, doesn't seem particularly bright (that's not to say that individuals on the spectrum are not bright by any means; the two characteristics are separated here), and his explanation of "Tony" makes him seem like he's not entirely mentally stable either. Wendy--well, you know. She's not entirely a strong and independent woman in the book, though she tries, but she's certainly not the sniveling, simpering wisp of a woman that Shelley Duvall portrayed. Jack, I've already touched on, but we could go into greater detail if we wanted to, I'm sure. Even Ulmann was inaccurately portrayed.

And that's just looking at it as an adaptation. As a film itself, I'm not particularly fond of it, as I find it mostly very boring with some disturbing images randomly thrown in here and there. And I'm not a fan of using the soundtrack to build up tension so that a character can walk into an empty room. At the time that might have been innovative, I suppose, but at the time I was too young to notice anything except the creepy twins (who were described in the beginning of the film as being NOT twins, as they were 8 and 10), and having not watched it again until just three weeks ago, found it more annoying than innovative.

Now look; I've gone and gotten all off topic.

shell22holmes

I am a Stephen King fan, my absolute favourite book is Bag of Bones be SK.
Jane Eyre is second.

I'm a King fan as well. My favorite book is The Shining. I love the relationship between Jack and Danny and the exploration of the permeability of the human mind and soul, not to mention the horror of such a thing. I could never like Stanley Kubrick after the way he mutilated such a wonderful story into such a pile of crap.

The made-for-tv version, which was truer to the King book is good. Kubrick focused on Jack slipping in to craziness and not the downward spiral of his marriage, parenting, his alcoholism and how those things affected every aspect of his life. I prefer that version over Kubricks.....but I'll still watch Kubricks movie as its a classic.

I did like the made for TV version. The reason the book is so good is because of Jack's relationship with Danny, in my opinion, and the contrast to his father, which Kubrick's version didn't even touch on. And I think it did a poor job of showing Jack becoming crazy, as he really started out the film as an unlikable a-hole who seemed on shaky footing mentally. Also, the characters in the film were so different from the book. (I wish there were a way to put spoiler tags up for those who haven't read it).

In the book Danny is incredibly bright and also has his special gift; in the movie, he seems almost as though he has an autism spectrum disorder, doesn't seem particularly bright (that's not to say that individuals on the spectrum are not bright by any means; the two characteristics are separated here), and his explanation of "Tony" makes him seem like he's not entirely mentally stable either. Wendy--well, you know. She's not entirely a strong and independent woman in the book, though she tries, but she's certainly not the sniveling, simpering wisp of a woman that Shelley Duvall portrayed. Jack, I've already touched on, but we could go into greater detail if we wanted to, I'm sure. Even Ulmann was inaccurately portrayed.

And that's just looking at it as an adaptation. As a film itself, I'm not particularly fond of it, as I find it mostly very boring with some disturbing images randomly thrown in here and there. And I'm not a fan of using the soundtrack to build up tension so that a character can walk into an empty room. At the time that might have been innovative, I suppose, but at the time I was too young to notice anything except the creepy twins (who were described in the beginning of the film as being NOT twins, as they were 8 and 10), and having not watched it again until just three weeks ago, found it more annoying than innovative.

Now look; I've gone and gotten all off topic.

Off topic continuing: Stephen Kings books are hardly ever adapted to screen well. Bag of Bones was a made-for-tv movie too and the killed it (killed not in a good way) I turned it off after 5 minutes. The only good adaptions are The Green Mile and The Shawshank Redemption & Stand By Me, which aren't your typical SK stories, the are all derived from the shorter stories (minus The Green Mile)

jenbit

I am a Stephen King fan, my absolute favourite book is Bag of Bones be SK.
Jane Eyre is second.

I'm a King fan as well. My favorite book is The Shining. I love the relationship between Jack and Danny and the exploration of the permeability of the human mind and soul, not to mention the horror of such a thing. I could never like Stanley Kubrick after the way he mutilated such a wonderful story into such a pile of crap.

The made-for-tv version, which was truer to the King book is good. Kubrick focused on Jack slipping in to craziness and not the downward spiral of his marriage, parenting, his alcoholism and how those things affected every aspect of his life. I prefer that version over Kubricks.....but I'll still watch Kubricks movie as its a classic.

I did like the made for TV version. The reason the book is so good is because of Jack's relationship with Danny, in my opinion, and the contrast to his father, which Kubrick's version didn't even touch on. And I think it did a poor job of showing Jack becoming crazy, as he really started out the film as an unlikable a-hole who seemed on shaky footing mentally. Also, the characters in the film were so different from the book. (I wish there were a way to put spoiler tags up for those who haven't read it).

In the book Danny is incredibly bright and also has his special gift; in the movie, he seems almost as though he has an autism spectrum disorder, doesn't seem particularly bright (that's not to say that individuals on the spectrum are not bright by any means; the two characteristics are separated here), and his explanation of "Tony" makes him seem like he's not entirely mentally stable either. Wendy--well, you know. She's not entirely a strong and independent woman in the book, though she tries, but she's certainly not the sniveling, simpering wisp of a woman that Shelley Duvall portrayed. Jack, I've already touched on, but we could go into greater detail if we wanted to, I'm sure. Even Ulmann was inaccurately portrayed.

And that's just looking at it as an adaptation. As a film itself, I'm not particularly fond of it, as I find it mostly very boring with some disturbing images randomly thrown in here and there. And I'm not a fan of using the soundtrack to build up tension so that a character can walk into an empty room. At the time that might have been innovative, I suppose, but at the time I was too young to notice anything except the creepy twins (who were described in the beginning of the film as being NOT twins, as they were 8 and 10), and having not watched it again until just three weeks ago, found it more annoying than innovative.

Now look; I've gone and gotten all off topic.

Off topic continuing: Stephen Kings books are hardly ever adapted to screen well. Bag of Bones was a made-for-tv movie too and the killed it (killed not in a good way) I turned it off after 5 minutes. The only good adaptions are The Green Mile and The Shawshank Redemption & Stand By Me, which aren't your typical SK stories, the are all derived from the shorter stories (minus The Green Mile)

My friends and I have a running joke that only SK short stories make good movies. His full legmth books make better mini-series or mini-movies. The Stand was great also liked Kingdom Hospital



However my Favorite books happenn to be the Wheel of Time series

gingerjen7

I am a Stephen King fan, my absolute favourite book is Bag of Bones be SK.
Jane Eyre is second.

I'm a King fan as well. My favorite book is The Shining. I love the relationship between Jack and Danny and the exploration of the permeability of the human mind and soul, not to mention the horror of such a thing. I could never like Stanley Kubrick after the way he mutilated such a wonderful story into such a pile of crap.

The made-for-tv version, which was truer to the King book is good. Kubrick focused on Jack slipping in to craziness and not the downward spiral of his marriage, parenting, his alcoholism and how those things affected every aspect of his life. I prefer that version over Kubricks.....but I'll still watch Kubricks movie as its a classic.

I did like the made for TV version. The reason the book is so good is because of Jack's relationship with Danny, in my opinion, and the contrast to his father, which Kubrick's version didn't even touch on. And I think it did a poor job of showing Jack becoming crazy, as he really started out the film as an unlikable a-hole who seemed on shaky footing mentally. Also, the characters in the film were so different from the book. (I wish there were a way to put spoiler tags up for those who haven't read it).

In the book Danny is incredibly bright and also has his special gift; in the movie, he seems almost as though he has an autism spectrum disorder, doesn't seem particularly bright (that's not to say that individuals on the spectrum are not bright by any means; the two characteristics are separated here), and his explanation of "Tony" makes him seem like he's not entirely mentally stable either. Wendy--well, you know. She's not entirely a strong and independent woman in the book, though she tries, but she's certainly not the sniveling, simpering wisp of a woman that Shelley Duvall portrayed. Jack, I've already touched on, but we could go into greater detail if we wanted to, I'm sure. Even Ulmann was inaccurately portrayed.

And that's just looking at it as an adaptation. As a film itself, I'm not particularly fond of it, as I find it mostly very boring with some disturbing images randomly thrown in here and there. And I'm not a fan of using the soundtrack to build up tension so that a character can walk into an empty room. At the time that might have been innovative, I suppose, but at the time I was too young to notice anything except the creepy twins (who were described in the beginning of the film as being NOT twins, as they were 8 and 10), and having not watched it again until just three weeks ago, found it more annoying than innovative.

Now look; I've gone and gotten all off topic.

Off topic continuing: Stephen Kings books are hardly ever adapted to screen well. Bag of Bones was a made-for-tv movie too and the killed it (killed not in a good way) I turned it off after 5 minutes. The only good adaptions are The Green Mile and The Shawshank Redemption & Stand By Me, which aren't your typical SK stories, the are all derived from the shorter stories (minus The Green Mile)

I agree with all...except that it had been so long since I read Bag of Bones that I rather enjoyed the movie. Except the ending; I don't remember why but that seemed off to me. I would add 1408 to that list; for such a short story, I thought they did quite well with it, not quite in spite of, but possibly because of the additions which were made. On the other hand, I remember that I was so creeped out at one point reading the story that I had to set the book aside and come back to it later, where the movie wasn't all that scary to me. But I was under the influence of something when I first saw it, and found it more amusing than frightening. While I find John Cusack somewhat obnoxious as a person, I do respect him a lot as an actor and I thought he did a fine job in the film. Regardless, I hope that the adaptation of Cell doesn't go forward with or without him as the lead. I've had it up to here (some place really high) with all this zombie nonsense! I think it's time to leave off with vampires and zombies and move on to some other supernatural fictional creatures. Witches, perhaps.

SammyLou28

Hands down, "The Time Machine" by H.G Wells. Love that classic Sci-Fi! I read a lot of stuff by him and Jules Verne.

I've been getting into Kurt Vonnegut lately.

EnderNC

Ender's Game. (In case you couldn't tell by my screen name :P) Loved it since I was a kid. It has a chemistry that can't quite be explained. Plus, playing laser tag in zero gravity would be pretty awesome, don't you agree?

traceyleighgirl

"She's Come Undone" by Wally Lamb. Incredible book. I reread it every year. I find it so well-written. I felt like I lived the life of Dolores. I hated having it end. You grow up with her, from age 4 to 40. The book haunts me. It sticks with me. Great books do that to you. They never leave you.