Reading

[llcoolvad]

Spent some time today surfing reading lists — things like the "1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die" and the Modern Library 100 Best Novels list. Out of the 1001, I've only read 144. Out of the 100, I've only read 25 (although the reader's list I've read 45). Out of the All-TIME 100 Novels, I've read 26. From the BBC List I've read 42; that one's a reader's favorites sort of list, so take that one with a grain of salt. I mean, Jean Auel? (BTW — I've made spreadsheets of them all; I can hook you up if you like, just let me know)

This was kind of scary, in a truly geeky cool way: http://www.whatihaveread.net/, where some guy has kept track of what he has read since 1974 (when he was reading books like Hop on Pop and Green Eggs and Ham). I also found Art Garfunkel's list of everything he's read since 1968, a level of obsessiveness that I wouldn't have expected from him. And he reads some real quality, too. Not a claim I can make, despite my English major history.

So basically I'm feeling a little inferior to Art Garfunkel. Never thought I'd be saying that! I got to thinking that even if I add 10 or so "good" books per year, and assuming I live another 30 years or so, I'm never getting to the end of the 1001 books. I'll easily read 1000 books in 10 or 15 years, but I read a lot of lightweight crap that doesn't really involve my brain.

I guess the upshot of all this is from now on I'm going to shoot for an overall improvement in the quality of my reading. I'm going to be more deliberate about how I choose a book, too. Currently it's whatever catches my eye, or whatever is sitting on the shelf in the library. I need to make my choices with more forethought. There are many authors on these lists that I've never read at all. That needs to be rectified. There are other books I've started and put down a couple times that I should try again.

I'm not saying these are the lists of my life. I'm not saying I agree with the selections. I just think that there are many wonderful books out there that I am missing out on, and I need to get busy.

Comments

[kicking-k.livejournal.com]

Having read to the end of the 1001 books, my brain is reeling slightly -- but I've only read 191 of them, and I have an undergraduate degree in English and French literature, so I've probably read more French novels than most Anglophones.

Two things strike me about the list: firstly, that it's very British-centred, and secondly that, particularly with the 20th-century novels, the same authors occur again and again. Margaret Atwood, Ia(i)ns McEwan and Banks - if you like them you've probably read them all, if not, not.

That said, I don't like all the authors mentioned, but a great many of the books I have read on the list are among my favourites. I hadn't read all that many of the 21st/20th-century books, but once we got into the 18th century, I'd read almost everything. Which indicates to me that perhaps more time needs to pass before saying "Everyone should read this" of a relatively recent novel. OK, perhaps the 18th-century books that are listed are the well-known ones, but why are they still well-known? Either because they're the better ones, or because they suit modern tastes better than those which have fallen into obscurity...

I think I may go through the list and pick out my own ones I would really consider to be must-reads.

[llcoolvad.livejournal.com]

Yeah, my percentage of "have read" vs. "haven't" was much much much higher for all the stuff pre-1900; the most dismal was post-2000 -- I have read TWO (Life of Pi and Curious Incident of...). My breakdown (because I have a spreadsheet, like the COUNTIF function, and am a freak!):

2000 -->
2 / 69
2.9%

1900-1999
82 / 716 (apparently the only good books were written in these 100 years!)
11.5% (I would have thought I'd read more here. I took modern novel classes!)

1800-1899
47 / 157
29.9% (high percentage here because I was an undergrad English major, and well, what else do they teach??)

1700-1799
9 / 46
19.6%

pre-1700
4 / 13
30.8% (not hard to rank high percentages here, when there's only 13 choices!)

I did a sort by author to see who had the most books on the list:

Ernest Hemingway 5
Toni Morrison 5
Edith Wharton 6
Elizabeth Bowen 6
Henry Green 6
Henry James 6
Iris Murdoch 6
Jane Austen 6
Margaret Atwood 6
Paul Auster 6
D.H. Lawrence 7
Don DeLillo 7
J.G. Ballard 7
Philip Roth 7
Salman Rushdie 7
Saul Bellow 7
Thomas Hardy 7
Graham Greene 8
Ian McEwan 8
Samuel Beckett 8
Virginia Woolf 9
Charles Dickens 10
J.M. Coetzee 10

There were probably a few I missed, and I'm sure there were a lot more with 5 on the list. But I've never even HEARD of J.M. Coetzee. Ever! And Don DeLillo? He's just wordy. I wouldn't call him amazing. I tried to read Underworld once and got bored very quickly. And Toni Morrison? I think she's a product of her times, not a classic. Enjoyable, sure, but on the level of Hemingway? No.

Anyway, it's fun to think about.

[kicking-k.livejournal.com]

Oh, you are wonderful. This is exactly what I was planning to do if I'd had time...

On further reflection, I think my bias towards 19th-century novels is more because I studied more novels as opposed to plays or poems for that course at college. I've read far more Renaissance plays than prose from the same era (not that there are too many novels to choose from back then, anyway).

From the repeated-author list, I only love Dickens, Atwood and Austen, although I've read quite a bit of Hardy, Wharton and James with enjoyment. But no Coetzee (though I've heard of him - he's South African, and won the Booker Prize twice, for The Life and Times of Michael K. and Disgrace). I've heard of all of these except Henry Green...

And I agree that not all of these are classics. I've read Life and Death of Harriett Frean by May Sinclair, but I don't know anyone else who has!

[llcoolvad.livejournal.com]

Yeah, my faves on the repeated list are Ballard, Wharton, Hemingway, Atwood, and Austen. Never been a huge Dickens fan, alas. Read most of his, but I always thought his work suffered from having been serialized in his day. Too wordy by half -- which might explain my love for Hemingway. Not wordy enough!

[llcoolvad.livejournal.com]

Of course I just went and looked up J.M. Coetzee and now feel like an asshole for never having heard of him. Booker and Nobel Prize winner. Hi! Sigh.

[livingdeb.livejournal.com]

I always wish lists like this would also tell you why you should read each of these books. I've read about 75 of the books on the list of 1001. (I haven't even heard of most of them.) Based on that small sample, it looks like there are a lot that describe something really really well. So for example, you could say to read:

* In Cold Blood - to see just how many bad things can happen if you think you're doing a no-big-deal crime. I really do think that criminals should read this. A lot of times criminals are good at rationalizing that what they are doing doesn't really hurt anyone.

* The Grapes of Wrath - to see what it was like to move west during the big drought. (Also, you can play the who's-gonna-die-next game with your friends, to keep it light.)

* Things Fall Apart - to see how damaging culture clash can be and to learn a little something about an old African culture

* The Jungle - to read what catalyzed the formation of the United States' Food and Drug Administration. An investigation found a real occurrence of everything portrayed in that book except for a person falling into the vat (and except for every single one of these horrible things happening to one family). I've heard that this book is poorly written, but I think they really only hate the end when it turns into a Socialism rag.

* One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich - find out what it's like to live in a Siberian prison camp, complete with good coping strategies.

* Lord of the Flies - one guy's idea of what we're dealing with in trying to make a society because of what he thinks basic human nature is like. I actually prefer Samual Butler's The Butterfly Revolution for this--it's a lot more fun and feels more realistic to me (maybe just because it's more modern).

Some of these are just silly fun - I can't see why else you would recommend them.

* The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
* Murder Must Advertise

Some have other reasons:

* Like Water for Chocolate - read this to see what a mythic story might look like if it were based on stereotypically female roles instead of the usual male roles.

* The Name of the Rose - who cares what he's saying; it's how he says it. Of course you also do get to learn a bit more about what it was like to live in Medieval times.

[llcoolvad.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I know just what you mean. The 1001 list is from the book of the same name, in which the editor has collected reviews over the centuries which might explain exactly what you're asking for. http://www.amazon.com/1001-Books-Must-Read-Before/dp/0789313707

There were a ton of books that I had heard of, but never actually knew anything at all about them other than their author and title. In some cases, when I finally read the book I realized I had no idea whatsoever what the book was even remotely about going in to it, and that it ended up being completely different than my expectations.

I still appreciate the sheer bloody-mindedness that causes someone to fell compelled to assemble such a list. If my local library gets ahold of "1001 Books", I intend to borrow it...