Wednesday September 12, 2007 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die
|
I checked this book out of the library a couple of days ago. |
As one of the Amazon reviewers who gave it a 1 star rating wrote, it's "just 1001 books some Prof likes". I'm not even sure he's a professor. The mini-bio on the back inside cover of the dust jacket says Dr. Peter Boxall is a senior lecturer in English Literature at the University of Sussex.
The book has lots of full page pictures, author anecdotes and short synopses of each of the books. If it was a magazine it would be glossy. Somebody kindly typed in the list of the 1001 books and submitted it to Listology. You can see what they are without having to buy the book.
Of these 1001 books, I've currently read 85 of them. I have several others on my "to read" bookshelves. Hopefully I'll get to them soon.
But the list contains some strange selections. Three by Douglas Adams and no Shakespeare there. Eight books by Ian McEwan and Milton's Paradise Lost nowhere in sight. As the Amazon reviewers have noticed there is
"No Iliad. No Odyssey. No Aeschylus. No Euripides. No Boccaccio. No Chaucer. No Dante. No Machiavelli. No Shakespeare. No Marlowe. No Old or New Testament. No Q'uran. No Lao-tse, Confucius, Bhagavda-Gita. No Beowulf. No Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.
There is also a definite preference for authors who have won or been nominated for the Man Booker prize. I'm sure an American editor would have generated a totally different list.
There are 51 books since 2000 that have become "classics" in 6 years (this book was published last year), and only 13 that are before 1700. Hmm. How did Boxall work that out?
So if I was going to take this list seriously, how long would it take to complete? 917 books left. Let's say I could read one a week (although books like Ulysses and Finnegans Wake would be likely to blow that theory out of the water, and to be honest, I really don't care enough to try), then it would take another 17-18 years to complete.
Sorry, there are other books that I'm going to be giving much higher priority in my reading list order.
( Sep 12 2007, 07:53:32 AM PDT ) [Listen] Permalink Comments [7]
Comments are closed for this entry.
![[ Registered ]](http://www.diarist.net/registry/button.gif ){kind=small}
Speaking as one of the contributors to the book you mention, I think it might be worth mentioning that the original title of the book was, if I recall correctly, _1001 Novels_. Since the novel is a relatively modern genre, albeit with historical bearings, the time skew of the project probably made more sense with that title. But the introduction does make clear that it is mainly concerned with the history of the novel (in which context some of the historical selections make more sense).
Posted by Ben on September 12, 2007 at 08:36 AM PDT #
Hi Ben.
Okay, I can (maybe) understand that. Thanks.
1001 Novels would have made a much better title.
But why 8 Ian McEwan's and no Milton (or is
Paradise Lost not considered a novel)?
Why three Douglas Adam's and no Terry Pratchett
or E. R. Eddison? (to give another example).
The selections definitely seemed skewed.
Just how much influence did the publishers have?
Posted by Rich Burridge on September 12, 2007 at 09:01 AM PDT #
How funny. As I went through the list, I despaired at how few of them I had read. Then when I finished, I tallied them up and I have read 84 of them, just
one shy of the 85 you read. And of course I fare much better if you include the "standard" classics this list left out.
Posted by Brian Utterback on September 12, 2007 at 09:04 AM PDT #
Well, the skew of classics is easy to explain. A "classic" is a book with an enduring, timeless quality, and only a fraction of books would aspire to that standard. But there's more novels published now than ever before, so of course a larger number will have the qualities to become a classic as well.
And to be honest, of that list of antique books, a fair number of them are really more in the "it's famous so you should know about it" camp, rather than "it is a great work of art so you'll be a better person having read it". Books like the bible or the koran may be important; but they frankly do not qualify as good literature by any stretch of imagination. Imagine any of those religious tracts being written down today, with no actual religious or societal baggage to prop it up but just the book - an account of the religious myths, history and genealogy of some ancient tribes. They would sink without a trace in the flood of publications if they even managed to find a publisher. To some extent that goes for a number of the other ancient works listed of course, where the value in the work lies as much, or more, in the time and context of its creation as in the work itself.
Posted by Janne on September 12, 2007 at 05:35 PM PDT #
I've read only 25, but I've seen movies of 23 more, one as a play, and heard one as a radio show. Am I uncultured yet?
I don't feel too bad, because a couple I'd started reading (since they were famous!), but simply couldn't finish because I couldn't stand them. In other cases, I've read many books by an author, and I can't figure out why he chose one over another for this list. Conclusion: simply because it's famous doesn't mean it's worth reading.
Posted by tim on September 12, 2007 at 06:23 PM PDT #
Totally agree Tim. I'm like you. I don't feel bad
with my 85 either. I should mention that I've also
attempted about a dozen others as well, at some
point in my life. Books like:
Confederacy of Dunces
Moby Dick
Ulysses
The Blind Assassin
I simply gave up on them because I wasn't enjoying
them. Life's too short and there are too many
other books out there that I know I'd prefer.
Posted by Rich Burridge on September 12, 2007 at 07:23 PM PDT #
If there are 50 books from the last 6 years, and it'll take you 18 years to complete the current list, don't forget to allocate time for the 150 new classics that will be written by that time ...
Posted by James on September 12, 2007 at 09:42 PM PDT #