Books That No One Should Read

[the other anonymous]

Dianetics.

I think that goes in the category of "Books That No One Should Believe".

Theoretically that should be every book ever.

For the original list:  Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You to Know About - Kevin Trudeau.

Fixed, textbooks and history books are books too you know 

Refixed.
History is fiction and fiction is religion.
Textbooks always contain errors and errors are fiction.
(Further, textbooks can be biased, etc.)

[Cainad (dec.)]

Dianetics.

I think that goes in the category of "Books That No One Should Believe".

Theoretically that should be every book ever.

For the original list:  Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You to Know About - Kevin Trudeau.

Fixed, textbooks and history books are books too you know 

Refixed.
History is fiction and fiction is religion.
Textbooks always contain errors and errors are fiction.
(Further, textbooks can be biased, etc.)

Please to direct us to a source of historical information that isn't biased in some way?

[Iason Ouabache]

Dianetics.

I think that goes in the category of "Books That No One Should Believe".

Theoretically that should be every RELIGIOUS book ever.

Fixed, textbooks and history books are books too you know 

No, I meant what I said when I said "every book".  As Cainad pointed out, all history books are biased in one way or another. "History is written by the victors". And science textbooks are usually out of date after 4 or 5 years due to the progress of research. The only thing that could be considered close to objective are math books and even some of those are dodgy.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

History is written by historians, and as such, most of the time it's mostly bullshit. Think of it like science, but without the ability to test empirically most of the time. You may on the off-chance run into some artifact that disproves a huuge chunk of canon, but you can't actually make such a thing come about.

[Cain]

History is written by historians, and as such, most of the time it's mostly bullshit. Think of it like science, but without the ability to test empirically most of the time. You may on the off-chance run into some artifact that disproves a huuge chunk of canon, but you can't actually make such a thing come about.

You actually don't have a clue how history is conducted, do you?

Cain
thinks you should STFU now, before you make an even bigger idiot of yourself.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

Nope. I'm just going on the fact that while you can test a hypothesis experimentally at pretty much any time in science, you cannot necessarily test a hypothesis for how an event went down in the past, and so that hypothesis can only be disproven by the influx of information that was not previously known.

As such, the historical equivalent of, say, the phlogiston theory, would take far longer to be disproven.

I don't claim to know historical methodology inside out. I can certainly ask my mom, though, since she's a historian.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Please to note: History is a weapon, not an impartial account of what happened.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

Please to note: History is a weapon, not an impartial account of what happened.

There are impartial accounts of things that have happened?

[the other anonymous]

Please to note: History is a weapon, not an impartial account of what happened.

There are impartial accounts of things that have happened?

Yes. Any account I give is absolutely true.

[popjellyfish]

Finnegans Wake.

No one should ever read it, including myself.

It's probably my favorite book of all time.

It's retarded.

[A.N. Other]

Anything by James Joyce (and by anything, I mean Finnegan's Wake and Portrait of a Artist as a Young Man) is not worth reading.

[Dedalus]

Anything by James Joyce (and by anything, I mean Finnegan's Wake and Portrait of a Artist as a Young Man) is not worth reading.

You could be horribly mistaken.

[A.N. Other]

Anything by James Joyce (and by anything, I mean Finnegan's Wake and Portrait of a Artist as a Young Man) is not worth reading.

You could be horribly mistaken.

Could be, but I'll never find out, or ever care.

[popjellyfish]

Anything by James Joyce (and by anything, I mean Finnegan's Wake and Portrait of a Artist as a Young Man) is not worth reading.

You could be horribly mistaken.

Finnegans Wake is something I know I'll be reading for the rest of my life. I've haven't read anything before or since that involves so much participation from the reader. It's a pure joy for me. That said, I usually don't recommend it to other people, and it's especially misleading to talk about it as a novel. Reading feels more like I'm having a conversation with myself.

[Honey]

I still haven't finished reading Finnegans Wake & maybe never will.  I like his short stories too.  Araby is one of my favorites.