Books that Have Influenced Me the Most

by Will Wilkinson on March 19, 2010

Tyler started this nice meme. I’m a bit skeptical about the reliability of introspection and memory, and I think this kind of thing generally reflects one’s favorite current self-construction rather than real influence, so I’ll try to avoid that, but I won’t entirely. I guess I’ll do this roughly chronologically, and leave out the Bible and the Book of Mormon…

1. The Phantom Tollbooth by Norton Juster and Jules Feiffer. This book made me realize that it is possible to play with words and ideas. I can’t even remember much of the story now.  (Is it Milo?) What I remember is the revelation that it is possible to get a thrill from manipulating ideas and the words that express them.

2. Dune by Frank Herbert. The Dune books connected with me deeply as a teenager. They appealed, I think, to the sense that people have profound untapped powers that discipline can draw out; e.g., Mentats, Bene Gesserit. Also, it appealed to the fantasy that I might have special awesome hidden powers, like Paul Atreides, and that they might just sort of come to me, as a gift of fate, without the hassle of all that discipline. I think this book is why I was slightly crushed when I turned 18 and realized that not only was I not a prodigy, but I wasn’t amazingly good at anything. I sometimes still chant the Litany against Fear when I’m especially nervous or panicking about something.

3. The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller/The Watchmen by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. I’m cheating on this one, since these came out about the same time and had a similar effect on me, and I don’t know which one to pick. Superhero comics can give a kid a pretty comprehensive mythology, a well of types and tropes and quests to draw from in the effort to make sense of the world. Miller and Moore/Gibbons convinced me at a vulnerable, self-conscious age that superhero mythology was not necessarily kid’s stuff, and that even superhero comics could be real art. So I planned to become a comics auteur, like Frank Miller.

4. A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. This book ordered and amplified my awe at the natural world. The fact that I could more or less understand it made me feel confident about being smart.

4. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read this at nineteen while working at the Joseph Smith Historic Center in Nauvoo, IL for the summer. I was just getting a strong sense of myself as a person apart from my family and hometown friends. I’d been excited by Bill Clinton in the 1992 Democratic convention and was toying with voting for him. Then I read Atlas Shrugged. I began reading the libertarian canon and I voted for Andre Marrou that Fall. I started paying more attention to my philosophy classes than my art classes. Ayn Rand is why I almost became an academic philosopher, why I became a libertarian, and why I work at Cato. She also all-but destroyed my interest in making art, since I could not at the time I was under her influence square her ideology of art with my own creative impulses.  I still suffer from this.

5. The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein. This is the first intellectual book I ever reviewed in print. I gave it a mixed review in the Northern Iowan. (I think I had some misgivings about some of the race and IQ stuff, but I understood that it was not a book about race.) A sociology professor either sent me an email or wrote a letter to the editor (I don’t remember which!) condemning me for not condemning the book for being racist. This was my first taste of the excitement and frustration of participating in public intellectual life. I was  impressed with Murray’s fortitude and grace in the face of what seemed to me to be outrageously unfair, truly scurrilous attacks. And it helped me understand the difference between trying hard to honestly think through tough social problems because you care and mouthing comfortable pieties in an effort to get credit for caring.

6. The Geneology of Morals by Friedrich Nietzsche. Morality has a history and its value is open to question. Our deepest intellectual commitments reflect deeper psychological needs. If this book (or Nietzsche generally) doesn’t make you wonder why you really believe what you do, then you are a clod. If I am hungry for the buzz of illumination, I go back to Nietzsche.

7. Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle. The best class I had as an undergraduate was a grad seminar on the Nicomachean Ethics taught by a Straussean. This is one of the best books ever written (or best set of lectures compiled) by one of the best minds ever. The paper I wrote for this seminar on what it means to have a stable disposition to action sparked my interest in moral psychology.

8. Law, Legislation, and Liberty by F.A. Hayek. Rand made me a libertarian. Hayek made me a liberal. I don’t know how much of what I believe comes from Hayek, but it’s a lot.

9. Tractatus Logic0-Philosophicus by Ludwig Wittgenstein. Still dominates how I think about modality and the bounds of what may sensibly be said. There is no book more like great architecture.

10. Universals: An Opinionated Introduction by David M. Armstrong. Initiated my love of metaphysics and Australian realism, though Armstrong never did argue me out of nominalism.

11. In Praise of Commercial Culture by Tyler Cowen. This book angered my inner Randian, but delighted my native sensibility. When I got home from my first IHS seminar, Tyler Cowen lecture in mind, free Tyler Cowen book in hand, I went straight to my computer to begin writing a furious denunciation, which I never finished. But I’m still curious about folk art and foreign cuisines and have since repeated Tyler-like arguments to so many people so many times that I forget what I ever thought was wrong with them.

12. Morals by Agreement by David Gauthier. This book was the key that unlocked the contractarian treasure chest for me. Made me understand at a much deeper level the point of moral constraints on self-interested behavior, and why they would be impossible if we were well described by stripped-down models of instrumental rationality.

13. A Theory of Justice by John Rawls. I dug into this book with the intention of saying what was really, really wrong with it. Instead, I ended up feeling like I understood political philosophy.

I’ll leave it at that, since now I’m trying to think of books that can stand in for the influence certain thinkers have had on me. I’ll just stick with books that notably changed me. I’m embarrassed that no works of fiction I read as an adult came to mind.

  • Jake
    Read "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephan Jay Gould before you say that you like "The Bell Curve"
  • uknowbetter
    Good list. Would have at least 5 overlapping with mine. I'd probably throw some Nock in my list: Our Enemy, The State is influential just as a title.
  • Unfortunately it took me far too long to pop my bubble of presumed superiority and cost me. If only I had paid attention to my Frank Herbert when he wrote:

    Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty.
  • MikeSchilling
    I could not at the time I was under her influence square her ideology of art with my own creative impulses.

    That's a fair sign that you might be an artist after all, as opposed to the crude propagandist Rand was.
  • I restricted mine ( http://tinyurl.com/yf395hp ) to nonfiction I'd read before the end of college. Else Phantom Tollbooth would have a good claim to be there, and for the same reason. It repaays rereading as an adult, Will-- give it a try!
  • robspe
    David Stove influenced me mightily, still does. And he made me realize how great Ayn Rand really was. The shallowness of the criticism here is unbelievable. When and where did Miss Rand ever say you had to accept all of her philosophy or none of it? What could possibly make anyone think she had said such a thing except never reading anything but the novels and ignoring the philosophy in them? The Virtue of Selfishness by itself beats anything Wittgenstein ever conceived of.
  • SRdV
    Rand and Wittgenstein worked in different areas of philosophy.

    Wittgenstein is tremendously important if you're going to look at what can be sensibly said or the relationship between words and meaning. I've never encountered anything in Rand that touches on those topics.

    What I've read in Rand's fictional works is focused on political theory and ethics.

    Wittgenstein has generally struck me as talking about issues that matter broadly, while Rand is just declaiming her preferred ethics.
  • robspe
    How can you comment on Rand without having read her philosophical works, and those of the many, many writers who have commented on them? The difference between Rand and Wittgenstein is that Rand can (could) write both massively popular fiction and intensely rational philosophy and Wittgenstein found it nearly impossible to write a coherent sentence on any topic whatever.
  • SRdV
    Are you asking by what right I commented on Rand or are you asking for a justification for commenting?

    If it is the first, I note that this is a blog that permits anonymous posting, therefore anyone has the right to state their thoughts.

    If the second, the matter is more complex. First, the requirement you propose is more severe than is required in philosophy generally. Indeed, commenting on Aristotle or Plato would be nearly impossible if it was necessary to read all of the commentaries on either. After restricting the requirement to reading all of an author's works we come to the second problem. It requires data that won't be used for proving the specific claims. This runs contrary to standard epistemic rules.

    If I'm wrong about the fields Rand focused on I suggest you offer proof instead of outrage.

    Since, you have renewed your improper comparison and added a false statement regarding Wittgenstein's writing, I will restate the error in the comparison and offer a demonstration that Wittgenstein did write coherent sentences.

    The comparison of their ideas is improper because they are writing in different fields. Here is one way to see this. (following the Classical Greek form)

    A thing should be judged based on what it is. As a painting should be judged according to the rules for painting and a ship according to the rules of naval construction. So, too, a philosopher talking of ethics and government should be judged as an ethicist, while the philosopher talking about what can be said should be judged as an epistemologist.

    Here is a demonstration of the same using a utilitarian form.

    If a person should ask for all the works on ethics or government, the works of Ayn Rand would be included, while the works of Wittgenstein would not. Conversely, if that person should ask for all of the works relating what can sensibly be said the works of Wittgenstein would come, while the works of Rand would not be sent. Thus, a comparison of the ideas of Rand and Wittgenstein produces no clear result. In ethics Rand is of much more importance, while in epistemology Wittgenstein is the greater.

    One might compare the two as writers, but it is unclear whether moving to this comparison will help. Those nonfiction works of Rand that I have read have a linear didactic style, while Wittgenstein uses a denser style with periodic recursions. This variation of style leads us to the same sort of problem as was found with comparing their ideas. Different styles are lovely in different ways. We could ask which is preferred, but, because the question is subjective, no general answer can be expected.

    Therefore, the comparison of Rand with Wittgenstein is improper.

    Now to demonstrate that Wittgenstein did write coherent sentences here are some examples from the "Tractatus".

    6.1 The propositions of logic are tautologies.

    6.11 The propositions of logic therefore say nothing.

    6.113 It is the characteristic mark of logical propositions that one can perceive in the symbol alone that they are true; and this fact contains in itself the whole philosophy of logic. And so also it is one of the most important facts that the truth or falsehood of non-logical propositions can not be recognized from the propositions alone.

    It should be clear what Wittgenstein is saying in these propositions. The propositions of logic are true in themselves because they are tautologies, while propositions in other fields rely on evidence from those fields.

    A further example:

    6.51 Scepticism is not irrefutable, but palpably senseless, if it would doubt where a question cannot be asked.
    For doubt can only exist where there is a question; a question only where there is an answer, and this only where something can be said.

    This is also coherent. In this proposition he shows the problem with Extreme Skepticism. It expresses doubts about things where nothing sensible can be said. Therefore the answers don't exist, nor do the questions it seems to be asking.

    Whether he is right or wrong, his writing is coherent. It is often difficult and usually demands careful reading, but it is coherent.

    A final note, the last sentence of my previous post is subjective. Like all subjective statements it cannot be false and therefore is of limited value. If you don't like it say so openly, rather than attempting to challenge my right to hold an opinion.
  • Greg N.
    I think Law, Legislation, and Liberty influenced me more than you, Will. So you're wrong about that one.

    Seriously, though: my most influential book (and wasn't this a meme like 5 years ago?) was a book on the coelacanth that I read every night when I was very little. It made me think the world might be very different from the way we are taught to think it is.

    Then I'd say "A Taste of Blackberries" and "Where the Red Fern Grows" are probably the next most influential because I read them in elementary school and they made me - and continue to make me - appreciate my friends and my dogs, respectively. And the stories still make me cry when I think about them. Plus, they kind of win by default because I don't think I've read another book since then (I stopped reading and moved to TV after I was no longer eligible for Pizza Hut's "BOOK IT!" program).

    Do people not tag others in memes anymore? Is that not a thing?
  • Ben
    I like this meme. I've found a few books I intend to read from it.

    I'm actually reading Atlas Shrugged now (at the age of 31), and I am amazed at how bad it is of a novel. The dialogue and characters are ludicrous. I can see why it influences nineteen year olds. Were I not a libertarian already, I think the novel would, at my age, push me away from libertarianism.
  • I read Fountainhead at the age of 22. I'm still at loss with all the people praising Ayn Rand. The novel was horrible. But maybe there isn't any clear morals to be learned from truly great novelists like V.S. Naipaul.
  • matt
    Phantom Tollbooth was not written by Jules Feiffer; he only illustrated it. It was written by Norton Juster.
  • Whoops. Thanks, I just fixed it.
  • dgauthier
    I am always appreciative when knowledgeable folks share information like this. Thanks for your list, and the link to Mr. Cowen's. BTW, my first name is definitely not David.
  • Steve C
    "Then I read Atlas Shrugged. I began reading the libertarian canon and I voted for Andre Marrou that Fall. I started paying more attention to my philosophy classes than my art classes. Ayn Rand is why I almost became an academic philosopher, why I became a libertarian, and why I work at Cato. She also all-but destroyed my interest in making art, since I could not at the time I was under her influence square her ideology of art with my own creative impulses. I still suffer from this."

    Rand has to be credited with piquing many people's interest in philosophy.

    But man, reading paragraphs like this - that's really sad, kind of touching. There's something Rand does to (I'm searching here) deaden/hollow out the soul...the acceptance of a framing of society as innovators vs leeches, the greater vulnerability to memes like "I've-got-mine-fuck-you", a shrugging of shoulders at egalitarianism, and not to mention the Objectivist take on other human endeavors. And (as she says) either you're with her or against her - easy choice.
  • Freddie_deBoer
    Indeed. Never forget-- she said, adamantly, time and again, that you must accept her philosophy in its entirety or reject it utterly, which is why it is strange to so often see those who claim to love her disobeying that dictate. On that point, she was unambiguous.
  • Steve C
    Will might be able to see how intellectual life might have otherwise turned out, in the form of Matt Steinglass:

    "3. Ayn Rand, Anthem. This is acquiring a narrative thread. Anyway, I read this on a bike trip through Cape Cod when I was 15, and found it so stupid and inferior (I’d read Animal Farm the week before) that it put me off Ayn Rand and any form of libertarianism forever. So I’d consider that pretty influential."

    http://trueslant.com/matthewsteinglass/2010/03/19/4-of-the-10-books-that-influenced-me-most/

    Orwell (THEN Rand) seems like an excellent way to inoculate against her. Those are opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of moral worth.
  • blackadderiv
    What's strange about that? If you don't accept Rand's philosophy in its entirety then you must think she was wrong about some things. Why can't her take it or leave it view be one of the things she was wrong about?
  • Freddie_deBoer
    That's a very fair point. Cuttingly fair, I'd say.
  • kevin
    I'm young enough that most of the things that influenced me the most are blogs, as opposed to books (I wonder if that has stunted me, somehow).

    One book that profoundly influenced me was Rand's Anthem. I read Anthem when I was in 8th grade because it was on a summer reading list and it was the shortest book I could find in my library. It was the most frightening and moving thing I had read at the time. I was always skeptical of demands for collectivism after reading Anthem.
  • uknowbetter
    I don't think Anthem gets enough credit. Sure it's simple, but it's a fine distillation of Rand's individualism not weighted down by many of the other issues that spring up in her work.
  • "I think this book is why I was slightly crushed when I turned 18 and realized that not only was I not a prodigy, but I wasn’t amazingly good at anything"

    I love hearing about when other people have it dawn on them that they aren't prodigies, and they come out on the other side probably better for that realization. It's a well documented phenomenon in the physics field. This blog post sums it up beautifully:
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/25/the-cult-of-genius/
    I now wish I had read Dune before I went to grad school, only to realize when I got there that I wasn't the next Richard Feynman.
  • Benson
    Wonderful post, Will. We'd all be better off if politicians were required to name ten books that honestly influenced them before taking office. It would provide us with such a detailed sense of who they are and what they really believe.
  • Yes we would be better off, but what politician wants us to know who they really are and what they really believe? (Or more precisely, how shallow their understanding of political thought really is.) From the perspective of the politician's self-interest, nothing good could come of listing ten truly influential/important books.

    Also, I'm pretty sure everyone would put the Bible at #1 and at least a few would mention something utterly stupid like "Liberal Fascism." And just wait for the moment when Fox News gets wind that an African-American candidate listed "The Autobiography of Malcolm X."

    I guess what I'm trying to say is that maybe it's better we don't know.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: