Hi Marct

Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
One of the key observations coming out of that discussion was that reading lists were originally used to define the "core" of a discipline; the "must reads" as it were to understand past and current debates. One analogy that was used referred back to the Bible and noted that you really can't talk in any meaningful way about Christianity until you had read it. And, since we're talking PhD level discussions now, you couldn't have a "meaningful" discussion about the New testament unless you could read it in the Greek; you just wouldn't understand the debates.
Concur. I have no issue with a recommendation as to 3-4 books that should be read to gain a common understanding of a specific subject. That being said, the vast majority/all of reading lists I have ever seen fail this test.

I also believe that such recommendations should contain explicit guidance as to books not to read - eg:
If you want to study CvC do no read the Rapoport Penguin Edition.
If you want to study Strategy do not read Liddell-Hart's "Strategy"

....the point being, as you said, time is short and the aim is to teach, not entertain or provide amusing academic debate!

Strangely enough, the possibly soon to cease "British Army Review" served the purpose of recommending what books Officers should read and what they should not!