Shoot, lets try that link again

Here is a link that might be useful: List of 1001 books

My TBR shelf just fell over.

Well! who on earth comes up with these lists!!!!
Whoever-they obviously have favorite authors and list just about everything they have written.
I have not heard of a lot of the authors so obviously I have not heard of a lot of the books listed.

By rough count I have only read 97 of those listed and have 12 on my TBR stacks.....some more recent books listed I have heard about, but they don't interest me enough to read them.

Pat

I've read about 200, or around 20%. I say about because I think I abandoned several before I actually finished them. Most of the others I have no desire to read before I die.

Of those I know I finished, nearly half of them I either disliked or loathed; and that's especially true of the more recently published ones. Many of the others I've considered only mediocre. Lists like this one make me feel, for the most part, like an odd duck because I don't seem to be impressed with the books most readers seem to think are brilliant.

I think I'm with friedag on this one. I was looking down that list and wondered why I hadn't read a lot of these books! Then, I started to hit the 1800s and the 1700s and the number that I had read suddenly started to shoot up.

I don't get it -- what makes these books so great that one HAS to read them before one dies? I can kind of understand why some of the books from the 1800s and 1700s are there -- they have withstood the test of time and the vagaries and fickleness of fashion, trends, and fads. But some of the books from the 1900s and 2000s haven't withstood the same test.

I've heard of quite a bit of the books but, like some of the others here, I have no desire to read them. As for brilliance in the writing, I look at genius and brilliance as being a lot like beauty and art. They're all in the eye of the beholder.

I guess I'm forever condemned to be a philistine for not reading a lot of these books or, possibly, not being able to appreciate them. Oh, well. It's nice being a philistine. It gives me time to read my Calvin and Hobbes. ;-)

I agree. I don't think Saturday will resonate through time like Tess of the D'Urbervilles or Jane Eyre.

Many authors I expected were not there: No Chaucer, Milton, Shakespeare, Hobbes, de Tocqueville, St. Augustine, or Tacitus, But it included "Memoirs of a Geisha" ? Many of the books listed will not stand the test of time as well as these authors have.

So the list is obviously meant as an idea, not a dogma. Like other lists of this type, it was meant to generate discussion and debate, which is not a bad thing.

I did like what one reviewer said - Almost all of it is "literature" to be read because it is literature, with little entertainment value. Like Frieda, I tried many of the books and couldn't finish them, found some of the authors to be so not my taste and refused to plow through them, or were required to read them but hated every second ot it. There is much literature that I enjoy at some level, but thats the key word - enjoy. Just because someone says its a classic doesn't mean its good.

> who on earth comes up with these lists!!!!
Whoever-they obviously have favorite authors and list just about everything they have written.

I don't know if that is true. I have tried to find how the list was compiled, and couldn't. Anyone have any idea?

And I'm sorry if posting these lists bothers people - I don't mean to. I do think the lists of books are interested to think about and talk about. And thats what we are here for, nu? :)

I guess that if you start with a number, say...1001, then you list all those books you remember from required reading in high school and college. After that, you just start listing any that you can remember both the title and the author. Then, you take your list to a publication somewhere, talk them into publishing it, and collect your check.

I think I have read all on the list that I am going to. It's interesting, to be sure, but I might miss something newer if I took time to try.

Many of these I'd never heard of. I wonder about the credentials of the person(s) who produced the list, as I spotted at least 3 typographical errors.

Why the absence of Chaucer in the pre-1700's?

Good question -- why WAS Chaucer omitted? And what about Beowulf? Or something that was Chinese or Japanese?

Is this the list from the book of the same name recently published by a guy named Boxall? Or one of the many others that are proliferating just now? Bookslut was talking about it last week.

I counted 108 that I've read, including Beloved that is on my worst-ever-don't-try-it list, and I'm an English major.

I, too, have read more of the old books than the newer ones.

I've read about 120 and started about a dozen more but never got very far into them. About half of the ones I've read are of fairly recent vintage.

Don't think much of a list that fails to include Kristin Lavransdatter, one of the greatest novels ever written, and the top of my list of novels to take to a desert island.

Where are Dante and Milton?

I see several others have complained about the multiple typographical errors on the list!

1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die: A Comprehensive Reference Source, Chronicling the History of the Novel
Preface by Peter Ackroyd, General Editor Peter Boxall
ISBN 1-84403-417-8

I'd be more interested in knowing why they think these books should be on the list. And as for the typos, it's just some kind soul who volunteered to copy the list online (not sure that's legal), there are bound to be typos.

I agree - info as to how and why they (or he) selected the titles would be very helpful.

I've read 76, and like most others, I don't understand why half of them are on the list. It does seem as though a few authors were chosen and all of their works were added.

There are a bunch of really crappy books on that list. Out of the 74 that I have read, fewer than 10 are on my list of rereads, and there are fewer than 100 others that I want to read.

At least in this case we can read the book and learn the reasoning behind the selections.

A much better collection, or list if you will, is by Clifton Fadiman (if the name is familar, his daughter Ann Fadiman wrote the popular Ex Libris). His book, The Lifetime Reading Plan, lists several books from Greek/Roman times, Middle ages, Plays, Narratives, Philosophy, Poetry, and History (note that most of these are in the non fiction category). He readily admits that these are mostly a Western mix. His reason? 'First, we are Western people. Our minds were molded by Western ideas and images.

He admits that he has no competence in any tradition other then his own, and readily admits that Eastern Literature does not interest him. I may disagree with his omissins, but at least he is honest.

The best part tho of his comments about his choices:

>This is not in any absolute sense a list of the 'best boks'. There are no best books. All we can say is that over three thousand years of Western history there has gradually accumulated a body of what has been caled 'classics'. The list of such books changes with each generation. No two scholars would compile identical lists, and no single scholar would find my own list satisfactory

BTW this book is copyright 1960. I have heard that a new one was being planned - does anyone know? Anyway, I thought the selection much more in keeping with what we think of as 'classics', not as books to read before you die, but as a reading plan for a lifetime.

Cindy, I have The New Lifetime Reading Plan by Fadiman. Published in '99. Mostly I've found myself looking at what he says about books I've already read. He did prompt my reading of the complete Iliad, one of the few books for which I developed a passion in my 40s. Those passions came frequently when young, and rarely these days, so I am grateful to find them.

There is Susan Wise Bauer who has published a slew of books for the homeschooling market, and one for adults: The Well-Educated Mind, which is a classics reading program for adults. I started Don Quixote, lasted 50 pages, eyes glazed over, so I gave up.

Venusia, I have that one, too. DQ is the perfect book for the bathroom. Tons and tons of short little stories one after another. Should not be read quickly imho. That was what stalled me with the Susan Wise Bauer book, too. I was excited to get started on her program but found DQ just wrong for starting.

I got bored with reading the list and went back to reading my book instead ;-)

Oh I loved DQ - tho granted I read it as a teen after seeing Man of La Mancha, so had lots of background info.

anyanka, what a concept! :)

All I can say is, FINALLY, a list that has George Gissing on it. The man deserves to be read, if only for the realistic manner in which he portrays the Victorian sub-classes. As for the rest of the list, ah well, it's all subjective and just a leaping off point. We could make our own list, you know.

PAM

Well, there's the Book of Lists and then there's the List of Books.

Hmmm, I've only read about 70, and I read more than anyone I personally know, except possibly Rouan. I read for fun and for information, so I tend to be a little light on serious literature. These days I read literary novels only if I expect to actually enjoy them, not to improve my mind.

Of the 70 I read, I enjoyed about two-thirds of them. I probably started another 30 or so, but abandoned them without finishing them.

I did wonder at the lack of Canterbury Tales (which I have not read) and Gilgamesh (which I have).

I think these lists are meant to be provocative, not definitive. And they did provoke some discussion here, didn't they? I actually printed the list and will use it for suggestions, next time I want something to read and nothing current appeals to me.

Rosefolly

I had to clear off one of my shelves (the weight had broken the board from the bracket, imagine that ....:) And cane across three anthologies that I had forgetten I had. The first two are old and out of print, but if you can find them, they are worth the effort

One is by Thomas Costain, called 'Read with me: a personal anthology selected and introduced by Thomas Costain' (1965). These aren't necessarily classics, they are books that Costain had read and loved, and wanted to share. He starts out with a summary of each book, then a more extensive review. Authors include Agatha Christie, F Scott Fitzgera;ld. Mary McCarthy, Dorothy Parker, Katherine Porter, Elie Weisel, Ruyard Kipling, and Virginia Woolf. Quite a collection!

The other is Much Loved Books: Best Sellers of the Ages by James O'donnel Bennet (1927) This one does focus more on classics, but there are several little known works written by well known authors.

Finally, and this one is in print, A Reader's Delight by Noel Perrin. He is a literary critic, and describes a collection of hard to find books that were among his favorites. I took on the task of finding these books (pre internet) - a wonderful treasure hunt!

Since I'm a list person, I loved reading through the list. I've only read 40, however, about 100 others are on my list of to be read titles. Here is another list of 1000 from the Online Computer Library Center. I think it'd be interesting to do a comparison of the two but I'm too lazy to put it together. I've posted a link to this list before, but for those who have not seen it, here it is again.

Here is a link that might be useful: OCLC Top 1000

Hee - at least the first 50 are classics, except for the odd Calvin and Hobbes and Doonesbury. Comic relief, perhaps? :)

I've read between a hundred and seventy and a hundred and ninety, I think - I lost count....

Interestingly, I split evenly between nineteenth and twentieth/twenty-first century. And yes, it's astonishing how many I've read as a direct result of this place.

I know these things are subjective - but still... Agatha Christie & Dorothy Sayers - but no Ngaio Marsh or P D James? Elmore Leonard - but no Ed McBain? (And talking of which, where is The Blackboard Jungle by Evan Hunter?)

It's also sometimes a bit obvious. Must have some science fiction. OK, I Robot, Foundation, 2001 and Slaughterhouse 5. And to show he's a cool dude, let's also include a Philip K Dick and another couple of Vonneguts. Thrillers - well, must include Le Carre and John Updike, and he's included Elmore Leonard to be imaginative. Comedy? A token Wodehouse, Billy Liar and Lucky Jim. (What do you mean, Lucky Jim's not there? I'm sure he meant to include it, it just slipped his mind.)

And yes, something is badly wrong when a list like this misses out Chaucer.

BTW, I must back up Cindy - the Read With Me anthology is marvellous. I've got it because it's got The Snow Goose by Paul Gallico, but I was very impressed with the other items in it.

And by the way - Mrs 'Arris is on that list, but The Snow Goose isn't....raises eyes to heaven.

A Kind Of Loving by Stan Barstow ought to be on anyone's list of a thousand books to read. Certainly ahead of The Nine Tailors by Dorothy Sayers.

Well, I got bored with my book and went back to the list after all... turns out I've read at least 155 of them, but it is rather a rum collection! It just reads like somebody's personal 'these-are-all-the-books-I've-read' list, particularly since many authors are represented repeatedly, as is typical of personal reading - once you discover you like someone, you plough through all their works.

I liked the fact that the list included a few German authors which I've actually read.

Main omissions from my point of view - The Catcher in the Rye, Grapes of Wrath and/or East of Eden.

Anyanka, The Catcher in the Rye is there. It's #529 on the list. The Grapes of Wrath, though, is missing, as far as I can tell, and that surprises me.

I went ahead and signed up for the site to make note of those on the list I've read and those I've started but never finished. A few I read so long ago that I'm not even sure I finished them -- they are ones that I remember loathing.

I agree that the list seems to be one person's bias or maybe it's the bias of a very small committee. There are some peculiar choices; but, thinking about it, any list is going to be peculiar in some way. It's particularly top heavy, in my opinion, on recently published novels. Anyway, I find it a very interesting list because it doesn't seem to be completely echoing all the other lists on the Internet and elsewhere. I've had to look up a lot of the books; and that's refreshing, to me, for a change.

Oops! I just found The Grapes of Wrath. It's #592. I have looked at the list now so much that it is beginning to blur together.

Duh, thanks Frieda. I went through the list fairly thoroughly (I thought) but it does get a bit blurry after a while...

I'm perfectly happy with my "Pulitzer List".

a belated yay! for George Gissing. If only the date of your death were known, I have read 1% of the books on that list but I might die tomorrow, tonight even, what about a shorter list say three or one even. You will die on Tuesday and before then I suggest that you read....