How Many Have You Read?

[Inderjit S]

I know these lists are a tad old (ish), but it would be nice to see how many listed books people on this forum have read, and how they compare to my tallies.

This list was complied by the readers and writers of the Observer newspaper, and it is listed in order of publication. This one is kind of exoteric in comparison to the other one.

Observer List

Now this list is esoteric, mainly because it was compiled by a group of authors.

Guardian (author) list

Naturally a lot of books are left out of both lists, since there is a limit on the number of books that can be included. But which exclusions do you feel strongest about?

My tallies are: Observer list: 57
Guardian list: 47.

 

[Martin]

For me it's 21 and 14.

Cheers

 

[sybilshade]

I get 48 and 51. These lists are pretty interesting - there are many titles I would like to try.

 

[Halo]

15 for the first list, and a rather pathetic 8 for the second. I only scored so well for the first because most of the ones I'd read were either children's books or books studied in English lessons at school!

 

[Martin]

books studied in English lessons

Cheers

 

[Themistocles]

15 and 11. That sucks. However, I have immensely little respect for any list that doesn't include Crime and Punishment, Paradise Lost or any John Steinbeck whatsoever, so I'm not overtly concerned.

And Machiavelli! Where was Machiavelli?

 

[Martin]

At home, doing some cooking, I hear.

Cheers

 

[Oponn]

21 and 14. Exactly the same as Martin, lol.

 

[novella]

The Guardian list is very international. For that reason alone, it's an odd list that seems to tell more about the diversity of the writers who voted than anything else. Though I've read about 40 of that list, there are some I've never even heard of.

The Observer list, on the other hand, is veddy English. I mean, Little Women? The 39 Steps? American Pastoral? (I think the English are the only readers who hold Roth in such high esteem.) They're okay, but definitely not in this category. But who am I to quibble? Though if someone said Let's bump off Normal Mailer to make room for Great Expectations, I wouldn't object.

Novella

 

[Stewart]

What a nice list although Ballard should have been included. I've read 15% of the titles. I own another 37% of the titles but haven't read them yet.

I wouldn't say they were esoteric titles although not all of them are exoteric.

 

[Ashlea]

27 on the 1st list, 18 on the second (counted 2 books by the same author as 1).

Tho often I read the other book the author wrote.

 

[Rogue]

18 and 8
I'm getting inferiority complexes!

 

[novella]

Just want to say that I'm OLD and also studied literature in university. My high counts on both (over 40 for each) are pretty normal for someone over the hill.

 

[contentedowl]

Ooh.....not very good 20 & 8, - many on the first list read years & years ago.

Useful lists to browse, certainly I have added to the TBR list

 

[magemanda]

Hmmm, shockingly, just 15 on the first and 5 on the second. Strikes me that the first list is a pretty comprehensive list of classics that *should* be read from the last century or so...

 

[Inderjit S]

The Guardian list is very international. For that reason alone, it's an odd list that seems to tell more about the diversity of the writers who voted than anything else. Though I've read about 40 of that list, there are some I've never even heard of.

The list is naturally English-centred since it is based on a poll by English readers. Americans are more likely to include Rand, Chopin and others since they are American authors. Though that being said, some authors such as Edgar Allan Poe were more popular in other countries then their own, and some, such as the aforementioned Chopin influenced certain socio-ploitical movements, such as feminism.

And whilst the inclusion of novels such as The 39-steps are hard to fathom, you must look at how certain novels influenced certain generations and how the influenced the voting. Still, there are a lot of notable exclusions: Les Miserables, Gargantua and Pantragruel, Fathers and Sons, Birdsong, All Quiet On The Western Front, A Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy, the Harry Potter and Narnia series of books, as well as Asimov, though I am just skimming the surface-and why or why is The Master and Margarita not in the list? Why David Copperfield instead of A Tale of Two Cities and Great Expectations? Why Anna Karenina instead of War and Peace? Why Madame Bovary instead of A Sentimenatal Education? Why Jude The Obscure instead of Tess of D'Ubbervilles? Why Daniel Deronda instead of Middlemarch and who, oh WHY, did they include that Salman Rushdie book which I have never even heard of instead of The Satanic Verses or Midnights Children?

Just want to say that I'm OLD and also studied literature in university. My high counts on both (over 40 for each) are pretty normal for someone over the hill

I'm 18, and have read nearly half and over half on each one. How over the hill must I be?

 

[Stewart]

Why David Copperfield instead of A Tale of Two Cities and Great Expectations? Why Anna Karenina instead of War and Peace? Why Madame Bovary instead of A Sentimenatal Education? Why Jude The Obscure instead of Tess of D'Ubbervilles? Why Daniel Deronda instead of Middlemarch and who, oh WHY, did they include that Salman Rushdie book which I have never even heard of instead of The Satanic Verses or Midnights Children?

Because, like you're harping on, they struck a chord with someone.

 

[novella]

The list is naturally English-centred since it is based on a poll by English readers. Americans are more likely to include Rand, Chopin and others since they are American authors. Though that being said, some authors such as Edgar Allan Poe were more popular in other countries then their own, and some, such as the aforementioned Chopin influenced certain socio-ploitical movements, such as feminism.

I did refer to the Guardian list as international, not English-centered. (Perhaps you are referring to the Observer list?) The majority of the books on the Guardian list were not written originally in English. So, no, it is not "English-centred."

Also, I would never include Kate Chopin or Ayn Rand on any list of 100 best books/writers, though maybe somebody else would? I think Chopin is read in American schools because it is so "accessible," to get back to your other thread. The literary canon taught in schools has become increasingly "easy to read" and not, IMO, representative of the best writing. Teachers like books that they can understand.

There are many books on the Guardian list that I would never read, I just have no interest at all. So these lists do not represent some body of work that anyone might aspire to digesting, merely the collective opinions of a bunch of individuals. I can't say Joao Guimaraes Rosa will ever be on my to-do list, nor will Alfred Doblin or Halldor Laxness.


Also, IMO Birdsong is a bag-of-wind melodrama with no art at all. It really is all a matter of opinion, isn't it?

Novella

 

[Stewart]

The literary canon taught in schools has become increasingly "easy to read" and not, IMO, representative of the best writing.

When I was in school - about eight years ago - the book on the syllabus was Lewis Grassic Gibbon's Sunset Song. The language in that was not, in any way, contemporary. I believe it is still taught within the syllabus.

 

[Inderjit S]

I did refer to the Guardian list as international, not English-centered. (Perhaps you are referring to the Observer list?)

Yes.

The literary canon taught in schools has become increasingly "easy to read" and not, IMO, representative of the best writing.

Over the last six years, I have been bombarded with a plethora of African-American novels. In fact that is all we have studied. As well as Shakespeare. Oh and 'Of Mice and Men' too, and I think we did 'Dracula' wayyyyy back.

I see nothing wrong with including easy to read books in the syllabus; they are in no way inferior.

So these lists do not represent some body of work that anyone might aspire to digesting, merely the collective opinions of a bunch of individuals.

Pretty esoteric, huh? Who are Doblin, Lorca, Rosam, Hamsun, Kawabata and Leopardi, as well as many others,

15 and 11. That sucks. However, I have immensely little respect for any list that doesn't include Crime and Punishment, Paradise Lost or any John Steinbeck whatsoever, so I'm not overtly concerned.

The Observer poll did not want to include long poems etc, hence no Dante, Spenser, Goethe etc.

And it is only one novel per author and they must have thought that The Brothers Karamazov was better then Crime and Punishment. They also did not include non-fiction, so no Machiavelli either.