Why Waffles?

Because we can.
This is really more of a “see which ones you’ve read so you can feel superior” infographic. No indication of genre, historical period, etc., or any of the things actually relevant to a book’s selection appear here.
Everyone should certainly not read these books. Everyone will hate on average at least half of them. And by hate, I don’t mean just that they will read them and disagree with them. I mean it would actively be a waste of time to read them because the person will not enjoy them or get anything out of them at all. And if you’re willing to include books that one person could not possibly like at the same time, why isn’t the Bible on there and the Origin of Species or Asimov’s Chronology of Science and Discovery? Why are these books only fiction, only popular among English-language critics, and why is Shakespeare not on here, despite being in both categories? 
Why am I so upset? It’s not the list itself, but the presentation that riles me. If you profess to spread information, at least make sure it’s accurate. This can only be presented as “here’s some books, you might like them.” Or at the very least, “some books that most people who read English should at least read the book jacket for.” The selection for this list is entirely arbitrary, because while you might claim that the criterion is popularity, it’s popularity among a very arbitrarily chosen group of people. You know, the people who are smarter than you. “Books everyone should read” implies that if you haven’t, you are stupid, and if you don’t like anything on this list, you probably have bad taste, too. And the implication that you are intelligent only if you have read fiction written mostly by affluent, white, European or American males is one of the most insidious and pervasive sources of elitism and bigotry in Western society because even when racism or sexism is socially inappropriate, if you can prove a given group or person is stupid, then discrimination is okay.
neil-gaiman:

Books Everyone Should Read — an infographic.
From http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/books-everyone-should-read/
CREDITS —
RESEARCH & DESIGN: DAVID MCCANDLESS, MIRIAM QUICK, MATT HANCOCK
DATA: BIT.LY/BOOKSEVERYONE
SOURCES: UK’S MOST BORROWED LIBRARY BOOKS, DESERT ISLAND DISCS BOOK CHOICES, PULITZER PRIZE WINNERS (1948-2010) ASKMETAFILTER.COM’S BOOKS EVERYONE SHOULD READ, WORLD BOOK DAY POLL, TELEGRAPH 100 NOVELS EVERYONE SHOULD READ, GOODREADS.COM, BSPCN.COM, GUARDIAN 100 NOVELS EVERYONE MUST READ, MAN BOOKER PRIZE WINNERS, OPRAH’S BOOK CLUB LIST.

This is really more of a “see which ones you’ve read so you can feel superior” infographic. No indication of genre, historical period, etc., or any of the things actually relevant to a book’s selection appear here.

Everyone should certainly not read these books. Everyone will hate on average at least half of them. And by hate, I don’t mean just that they will read them and disagree with them. I mean it would actively be a waste of time to read them because the person will not enjoy them or get anything out of them at all. And if you’re willing to include books that one person could not possibly like at the same time, why isn’t the Bible on there and the Origin of Species or Asimov’s Chronology of Science and Discovery? Why are these books only fiction, only popular among English-language critics, and why is Shakespeare not on here, despite being in both categories?

Why am I so upset? It’s not the list itself, but the presentation that riles me. If you profess to spread information, at least make sure it’s accurate. This can only be presented as “here’s some books, you might like them.” Or at the very least, “some books that most people who read English should at least read the book jacket for.” The selection for this list is entirely arbitrary, because while you might claim that the criterion is popularity, it’s popularity among a very arbitrarily chosen group of people. You know, the people who are smarter than you. “Books everyone should read” implies that if you haven’t, you are stupid, and if you don’t like anything on this list, you probably have bad taste, too. And the implication that you are intelligent only if you have read fiction written mostly by affluent, white, European or American males is one of the most insidious and pervasive sources of elitism and bigotry in Western society because even when racism or sexism is socially inappropriate, if you can prove a given group or person is stupid, then discrimination is okay.

neil-gaiman:

Books Everyone Should Read — an infographic.

From http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/books-everyone-should-read/

CREDITS —

RESEARCH & DESIGN: DAVID MCCANDLESS, MIRIAM QUICK, MATT HANCOCK

DATA: BIT.LY/BOOKSEVERYONE

SOURCES: UK’S MOST BORROWED LIBRARY BOOKS, DESERT ISLAND DISCS BOOK CHOICES, PULITZER PRIZE WINNERS (1948-2010) ASKMETAFILTER.COM’S BOOKS EVERYONE SHOULD READ, WORLD BOOK DAY POLL, TELEGRAPH 100 NOVELS EVERYONE SHOULD READ, GOODREADS.COM, BSPCN.COM, GUARDIAN 100 NOVELS EVERYONE MUST READ, MAN BOOKER PRIZE WINNERS, OPRAH’S BOOK CLUB LIST.

http://wiltekirra.deviantart.com/art/Lara-359499063

Contest entry. Stressful to make, but aside from the mediocre scan, I do like it.

2 months ago
earthandanimals:

rdreamwalker:

asilookatthemoon:






The Quick Brown Fox Jumps Over the Lazy Dog.
I feel like I’ve been preparing for this image all my life.



The internet is over, everyone can go home

It’s just as beautiful as I always imagined.


My life is complete.

Life is over as we know it

All of the above.

earthandanimals:

rdreamwalker:

asilookatthemoon:

The Quick Brown Fox Jumps Over the Lazy Dog.

I feel like I’ve been preparing for this image all my life.

The internet is over, everyone can go home

It’s just as beautiful as I always imagined.

My life is complete.

Life is over as we know it

All of the above.

(Source: theamericankid)

hifas:

Watermelon Tongue, 2012 by Valerie Hegarty

hifas:

Watermelon Tongue, 2012 by Valerie Hegarty

This is totally what Scrambles looks like when she’s pouncing.

This is totally what Scrambles looks like when she’s pouncing.

(via earthandanimals)

martineken:

 Dalton M. Ghetti

Dalton began learning how to handle tools at the young age of 6 when at school in Brazil, he and the other students used either a razor blade or a pocket knife to sharpen their pencils for drawing and writing.

Also, his mother was a seamstress. When Dalton was 8 years old, she taught him how to use a sewing needle to help her with simple projects like hemming and sewing buttons. At the age of 9, his parents gave him a set of metal tools for children, which he used to make his own boxes, toys and go-carts. This is also the age when he began sculpting with knives, chisels and a hammer. Ever since, he has created many objects out of all kinds of materials.

At first, he carved large objects; but in 1986, as a challenge to himself and because of his interest in small living things, like plants (moss) and insects (spiders and ants), he decided to create the smallest possible carvings that he could see with his naked eyes. One day, he picked up a working pencil and started carving it.

His idea is to bring people’s attention to small things. Small is beautiful. Most of the pencils he uses are found on the streets and sidewalks. Dalton’s work is a recycling process. He turns discarded objects into art.

To create his sculpture, he holds the pencil in his hand under a strong light source (table lamp or sunlight) and carves it mostly with a sewing needle and a very sharp, triangular, small, metal blade. He works at very small intervals: 1 to 2 hours maximum per day whenever he gets inspired. He works very slowly by removing specks of graphite at a time. It therefore takes months or sometimes years to complete a sculpture.

For Dalton, sculpting pencils is a hobby and a form of meditation, which requires a lot of patience. His pencil carvings are not for sale. He doesn’t do it for money. He sculpts pencils mostly for himself and his art comes from his heart. He wants to keep it that way.

(via martinekenblog)