I can remember reading odd things; that is, odd in form if not content, and things that were odd for me to be reading. Of the former, non-obscure works that had been translated into relatively obscure languages; of the latter...well, I did consume, long ago, a history of the heavyweight boxing champions, because it was available reading material, and I wanted to read. I was not inspired to any appreciation of the sweet science, but as I read it at a highly absorbent age, it allowed me, in later years, a couple of shocking victories in trivia matches. But of the more obscure brands of Albanians and Iberians (no, not the ones you're thinking of), I never read a word.
Depends on the meaning of "obscure", I suppose. Is Modern Spacecraft Dynamics and Control obscure enough for you? Spectroscopy of Astrophysical Plasmas? Grokking the GIMP?
I will take as a good working definition of obscure, "the book which yields the fewest Google hits". I would've plumped for Aristocracy in England, a delightful 1885 (or '86, depending on who you ask) book by Adam Badeau as "most obscure", since last time I googled for it, it came up with two results only. But these days you can find actual scans of the thing.
So far, the most obscure "book" (it's more of a pamphlet, really; does that count?) I can remember reading is By Square-Rigger to Honolulu, which is the journal of said journey taken by teenager Shirley Hyatt in something like 1900. Google only coughs up two sites mentioning this book.
Posted by: Angie Schultz on January 11, 2005 06:56 PM
My problem is that much of the obscure stuff that I've read, I no longer remember the title of. My own dissertation was pretty damned obscure (and deservedly so); but I can't remember if I ever sat down and read the final result.
Posted by: David Fleck on January 22, 2005 04:26 PM