Ten Worst Books?

CHT to the reader who sent me this link to

HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE’S RANKING OF THE TEN MOST HARMFUL BOOKS OF THE 19TH AND 20TH CENTURIES.

It makes interesting reading. Human Events Online asked a number of folks to nominate and then vote on which books they thought had done the most damage in the last two centuries.

The list (sans the reasons why the books are on the list–read the article for that) is:

  1. The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
  2. Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler
  3. Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book
  4. The Kinsey Report by Alfred Kinsey
  5. Democracy and Education by John Dewey
  6. Das Kapital by Karl Marx
  7. The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan
  8. Course in Positive Philosophy by Auguste Comte
  9. Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche
  10. General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money by John Maynard Keynes

The article also lists many books in the (dis)honorable mention category–ones that were apparently nominated but didn’t make the final top ten (e.g., The Origin of Species, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, The Greening of America).

Of course, the fascination of such lists (since they have little practical use) is analyzing them to see whether or not one agrees with them.

In this case I’d buy some of the entries (Communist Manifesto, The Kinsey Report), I’m open to others being in the top ten (Charman Mao’s Little Red Book, Democracy and Education), puzzled by others (Beyond Good and Evil, and Course in Positive Philosophy–I just don’t know if Nietzsche and Comte’s works had enough influence to rank in this way).

One book that I’m surprised is not there (nor even in the [dis]honorable mentions) is An Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus. This was the book that popularized the whole "overpopulation" problem by postulating that the means of production only grow arithmetically while the population grows geometrically.

The authors of the list might have not named this one since the first edition came out in 1798, and thus at the very end of the 18th century, but all five of the revisions (which amounted to quite substantial changes) came out in the 1800s, qualifying them.

What’re y’all’s picks for the ten worst books category?

Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

44 thoughts on “Ten Worst Books?”

  1. “Silent Spring” has gotta be up there.
    And look for “The Da Vinci Load” to feature in C21’s greatest hits.

  4. I’d nominate Evangelium Vitae, the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration of the Doctrine of Justification, Ut unum sint, Unitatis Redintegratio and the Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

  5. For the influence of Comte, see Hayek’s book The Counter-revolution of Science.
    My suspicion is that logical positivists such as Ayer did more to undermine traditional religion and morality than, say, Nietzsche.

  9. “Atlas shrugged” and “the Fountainhead” both by Ayn Rand.
    Anything written by Sigmund Freud.

  11. Catholicism by RIchard McBrien
    The Cotton Patch Bible _by “the big feller up yonder”

  12. Has nobody mentioned “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”? That’s a pretty big one.

  13. Keynes is one of my favorites.
    As far as books go, I would have to go with Little Women or any other book my wife loves that has been made into a movie which I have had to sit through.

  16. I think it is reasonable to assume a wide impact for Nietzsche’s work. After all, no Nietzsche, no Nazis…at least, the Nazis as we know them. If any, he is the closest to being the premier philosopher of Nazi ideology.
    As for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I think that piece of calumny goes way before the 19th century.

  17. I’m surprised nobody here has mentioned:
    Glory and Praise
    and
    Spirit and Song
    hymnals by Oregon Catholic Press…

  19. Oooh . . . I’d second Rhys on the Ayn Rand stuff. What do folks see in Atlas Shrugged? 8th grade vocabulary & a science fiction premise. (Note to Michelle Arnold: AS is one book I didn’t mind creasing!) Makes L Ron Hubbard look like Shakespeare! As for her “philosophy” – puh-leeze. A 3-page diatribe about money not being the root of all evil because it’s empowering is simply insulting. I wish Chesterton had had the chance to give rebuttal to Rand in novel form. Woulda blown her “A is A” objectivist attitude outta the water!
    Speaking of L Ron . . . how ’bout adding Dianetics to the worst list, too? (Yes, Mr Cruise, I mean that Mr Hubbard!)

  20. “I’d nominate Evangelium Vitae, the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration of the Doctrine of Justification, Ut unum sint…”
    ???
    Phil, you’re responding to the previous post, right, about positive works?

  21. After all, no Nietzsche, no Nazis…at least, the Nazis as we know them. If any, he is the closest to being the premier philosopher of Nazi ideology.
    Well, ja und nein. Hitler was inspired not so much by Nietzsche’s thought as by his misreading thereof. If you read what N. says about the state, you can see that he’d have been horrified and disgusted by totalitarianism whether of the National Socialist or of any other variety.

  22. “Atlas Shrugged?” Geez, it’s not all that *good* a book, but it certainly doesn’t make a case for libertinism, only libertarianism. And Jimmy, “The Origin of Species?” Double geez. I don’t care if Darwin’s intent *was* to promote worldwide atheism (which I doubt); the work *itself* was instrumental in turning biology into a proper science, and must be judged on its own merits.

  23. And Jimmy, “The Origin of Species?” Double geez. I don’t care if Darwin’s intent *was* to promote worldwide atheism (which I doubt); the work *itself* was instrumental in turning biology into a proper science, and must be judged on its own merits.

    I don’t think Jimmy expressed an opinion of the list’s ranking of that title??

  24. Oops. Mea culpa: the *list*, not Jimmy, had Darwin on the dishonorable mention list. Apologies.

  26. Chris-2-4, ROFLOL…
    Yes, some hymnals make better skeet targets than music resources. 🙂
    PULL!

  28. I’m confused… the Joint Doctrine of Justification was one of the greatest works of the last century in my estimation followed closely by Orientale Lumen.
    Atlas Shrugged might not have been the most harmful book but it is right up there with the worst. I second the Holy Blood Holy Grail statement. I am going to give the prize to the New World Translation.

  29. I’d be interested to know what other’s think about Eamon Duffy’s; Saint’s and Sinners…I found it unreadable…not least of all due to confusion…when I was reading it early on in my conversion, one of the most fundamental bullet points of my conversion from Anglicanism (in addition to John 6, the Eucharist) was Matt 16:18..that Christ established the Church upon Peter…gave the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter…and yet in Saints and Sinners, St. Linus is listed as the first pope…with the words above the listing, “Peter is not reckoned as a pope”…I found that very conflicting and simply couldn’t finish the book after reading that.
    God Bless.

  30. Mike, you don’t think Rand’s books which espouse her Objectivist philosophy (Atlas Shrugged being its manifesto) that man’s own happiness is the “moral purpose” of life, “productive achievement” is the greatest possible & “noblest activity” for people, & “reason is the only absolute” in the universe are evil? There’s absolutely no room for God there. It makes man the god of his own personal world.
    I’d call that a really bad book!

  31. Index Librorum Prohibitorum: Wingnut edition

    I wanted to add some value to the list by including links to Barnes & Noble, where you might purchase these books yourself before they’re removed from the electronic shelves altogether.

  33. I would say that Rand really doesn’t have that much influence.
    The interesting this is that books that have made a large negative impact on society should be must-reads in order to understand our current society, and how to impact it in a positive manner.

  34. Spirit and Song is a great book. As a music minister, I have used it on many occasions. It is a powerful tool to lead people of all ages closer to Christ and the teachings of His great church. It is much better than Breaking Bread from the perspective of a hymnal IMHO.

  35. “As for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I think that piece of calumny goes way before the 19th century.”
    It actually doesn’t. It was written in the late 19th century in France by Russians writing to protect and appease the czar. There were hints of this kind of world-wide Jewish conspiracy literature before, but the Protocols itself wasn’t written until the 19th century.

  36. Hmmm. Could a case be made for a book like Brave New World being on the worst list, on the basis of the sheer number of people who are forced to read it? It is relentlessly taught at schoolchildren as a warning and yet our society grows more and more like it with each passing decade. Subliminal brainwashing of children on a national scale??? Scary.

  37. Regarding Rand: I’m with JohnH, I do not think she was anywhere near influential enough to qualify for the list. Also, I disagree that any atheistic worldview is equivalent to evil. By her own lights, she espoused a system of functional ethics. Was Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” evil?
    There is a big difference between an areligious view and an antireligious view.
    (By the way, I’m the Grand Knight of my local Knights of Columbus council; hardly an anti-Catholic.)

  38. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was not released until 1905 I think, so it qualifies.
    It’s exclusion gives good evidence that the developers of the list was less interested in what books were really harmful, and which ones were written promoting a different political and social agenda than what they believe in. Whatever their supposed faults, are Dewey, Friedan, and Keynes really up there in terms of inflicted harm? I think not.

  39. “Well, ja und nein. Hitler was inspired not so much by Nietzsche’s thought as by his misreading thereof. If you read what N. says about the state, you can see that he’d have been horrified and disgusted by totalitarianism whether of the National Socialist or of any other variety.”
    Well, I could argue that Marx himself would’ve been horrified with the pervasive totalitarianism of the USSR, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t its intellectual father as much as Lenin was.
    I think Hitler didn’t care much about what Nietzsche thought of state, only what N. thought of man. And I think that qualifies as influence enough. Hey, Time didn’t call Einstien man of the century for his views on God, now did it?
    “Whatever their supposed faults, are Dewey, Friedan, and Keynes really up there in terms of inflicted harm? I think not.”
    I can understand Dewey and Keynes being questionable (I think the listing of Keynes was a reaction against the New Deal of which he was an intellectual proponent). But Friedan? Her “Feminine Mystique” (I prefer Tim Allen’s mangling of it into the “Feminine Mistake”) became one of the leading intellectual banners of the bra-burning feminism which gave us abortion, Planned Parenthood and the NOW. Heck yeah, it was harmful. It is evidence of how easy it is to corrupt a good movement.

  40. I’m very late to this thread. But I have to chime in here because I think I can offer an irrefutable argument for including Ayn Rand in the top ten: Rush. In particular, Neal Peart. If we consign Ayn Rand to the flames, this sort of thing will never happen again.

  42. Oops, my mistake. I had just skimmed your blog (I ran across it as a link from another site). Didn’t realize it wasn’t your own list.

  43. Among the books that I might have included on this list were/are any books written by the late Nino Lo Bello. After skimming just a few pages of them (e.g. “The Vatican Billions” and “Vatican, U.S.A.”), it becomes quite obvious that the late Mr. Lo Bello was a conspiracy theorist who had definite anti-Catholic tendencies. However powerful the Vatican Bank may be, I strongly doubt that it’s quite THAT powerful.

  44. Among the books that I might have included on this list were/are any books written by the late Nino Lo Bello. After skimming just a few pages of them (e.g. “The Vatican Billions” and “Vatican, U.S.A.”), it becomes quite obvious that the late Mr. Lo Bello was a conspiracy theorist who had definite anti-Catholic tendencies. However powerful the Vatican Bank may be, I strongly doubt that it’s quite THAT powerful.

Comments are closed.