I started with one of the Great Courses book lists - The Art of Reading. And unsurprisingly, haven't gotten very far. This list serves as examples of types of literature and writing styles, though, not as a list of "must reads".
It might be helpful to try to categorize them as "why this is a must-read". IMO, that would be almost as interesting as the list itself. Because it was innovative in style? Because it has something new to say? Because it reflects a certain way of thinking or is emblematic of a certain period of time in a particular culture? Because it influenced an entire generation? etc.
I was thinking of something like: 1001 Essential Books for Cultural Literacy, and then break it down into era/genre, with a broad sampling from all genres, but being especially picky about anything that isn't at least 20 years old, because how can we possibly predict what will stand the test of time if it was just published a few years ago.
The main reason, from my personal perspective, to read broadly is to increase our understanding of our world and ourselves, which is partially defined by the media that we and our peers consume. Past informs the present, which is why books like The Way We Are Now by Anthony Trollope or Hard Times by Charles Dickens or North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell remain relevant - they tell us something about who we were, and they continue to tell us something about who we are.
Any list that doesn't include genre fiction - romance, horror, crime, etc. - misses out on a whole lot of cultural literacy. Including genre fiction also allows the list maker to include more women and authors of color in the list, since "literary fiction" is, historically, predominantly the province of white males. Other authors were frequently isolated into genre fiction because their narratives weren't considered normative enough to get the imprimatur of universality.
Anyway, it's kind of an intriguing idea.
6 years ago
I have beengradually compiling my own 1001 book list and its more difficult than I anticipated
I love the idea of these books - this 1001 has gone through a few editions and alterations (mostly in an attempt to make it less white, male and anglo).
I bought this spreadsheet: https://arukiyomi.com/?page_id=4256 a few years ago that has all 1,300-odd titles and it was fun, but I don't actively try to read the list anymore
That one looks fun, and I will probably buy it, since I love booky books. Having said that, I may do what Wanda is doing above, and start compiling a list of my own!
So, I already bought that book and I don't know if I should give you a virtual hug or shake my fist in your general direction (are you N, S, E, or W of Oregon, so I know which direction to face)! ;)
I got this as a christmas gift from my bf years ago. It was a fascinating read, lots of books I'd prob never read so I mostly look at it to look up some classics that might seem appealing to me.
I went through Boxall's whole 1001 book list a few years ago and through the other 1000 book list (which btw is available for free in its entirety, comments included, here: https://www.1000bookstoread.com/p/jamesmustich) earlier this year. Beyond the fact that both lists contain a lot of the predictable "usual suspects", what most stands out to me as distinguishing the two lists and their compilers' respective approach is that:
(1) Boxall's list contains a lot of high concept, artificial-style, "l'art pour l'art" books that, personally, aren't really my thing at all (also a *lot* of books spreading gloom and doom just because it's sooo intellectual to do that), BUT it also includes a large contingent of books not originally written in English, including books written one or even several centuries ago in languages other than English that are essential classics in their countries / cultures of origin but are decidedly less well-known in the English speaking world.
(2) Whereas the other list, by Prof. Mustich, is somewhat (not entirely, but by way of a tendency) more Anglo- and especially America-centric, its most interesting feature (to me) being the large number of nonfiction books that it includes; particularly biographies and books on history and politics, but also (popular) science and other topics.
I've created "status" shelves in my library for both lists -- not because I expect or even want to read every single book included in them, but simply to track my reading and, well, in a "just in case, whenever I happen to be in need of inspiration" frame of mind.
There's another list that I do actually plan to turn into a project one of these days, however, and that is the 133 book list compiled by Prof. Clifton Fadiman as a "Lifetime Reading Plan" for a well-rounded reader: http://sonic.net/~rteeter/grtfad4.html
I may at some point also have a closer look at the Guardian's "1000 Novels" list (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/jan/23/bestbooks-fiction) -- though that, too, probably contains a lot of books I won't ever feel any compulsion to go anywhere near.
My problem with the Boxall list is it's laser focus on literary fiction written by men, which I tend to find utterly charmless. I've never even read one book by Paul Auster, and no one will ever convince me that it is "essential" that I read seven of them. Plus, it includes American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis. Ellis is insufferable and his book is vile, and this shows an enormous want of taste.
I received my copy of the Mustich book yesterday, and I am still perusing it. It does have some very interesting selections, and, so far overall, I think that I like the list a bit better, but, as you said, there's a significant number that I look at and think "nope."
The "old white men" (or simply "white men", but mostly "old white men") contingent in the Mustich list is extremely high as well -- having gone through the whole thing, I'd say probably even higher than in Boxall's; the difference being that in the Mustich list they're writers of nonfiction, whereas in the Boxall list, yes, exactly, they are the ones chiefly responsible for the off-putting high-concept / lit-fic contingent. Anyway, neither list is all it's made out to be by those promoting it.
Thank you -- fixed (browser just didn't like the parenthesis and the line break). I'd copied the link straight from actually having visited the page. Here it is again, to be on the safe side:
I see why that is a "lifetime" list - it's an intimidating list for sure without a lot of fat. All of that stuff from antiquity. I think I'd only be able to manage one or two of them a year, and I've already read what I would consider the "easy" ones (Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, the Trollope selections, Middlemarch, Alice in Wonderland).
I love it that he included three by Edith Wharton! Woohoo!
The Guardian list is, at first glance at least, my favorite of them all, because it includes subsections for crime (five Christies!), fantasy/sci fi, etc. I might try to c&p it into a document and print it and see how many I've already read.
I rather like the Guardian list at first sight, too -- but I'm still afraid upon closer inspection it'll turn out a bit daunting. But, yes, triple hoorays for crime and fantasy!
The stuff from antiquity (or antiquity through the Middle Ages) is actually what I'm most interested in on Fadiman's list -- particularly the non-Western entries. I've read / seen performed the Greek mythology-related entries (Homer, Sophocles, etc.), though I've yet to get to the actual source texts on Greek philosophy, but virtually none of the non-Western stuff ... and yeah, unsurprisingly I'm doing better with the more recent entries in that list (19th and 20th centuries) as well.
Based on my count just now, I've read 137 of the Guardian list, with the largest percentage in "crime," (not surprising), and the smallest percentage in "comedy" (also not surprising).
I've at least partially completed 23 of the Fadiman list, mostly in Part 4. Nothing in Part 3, because I don't feel like my high school reading of MacBeth, Romeo and Juliet, The Taming of the Shrew and Hamlet qualify me to cross off the Collected Works of William Shakespeare. That one alone would be a lifetime project.
The BBC "Complete Shakespeare" series just might help with that ... Some of the productions are helplessly dated (the whole thing was produced in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and in some of the plays it really shows), but there are absolutely outstanding productions in there, too, which in and of themselves make the whole thing worthwhile. And you get the lesser known plays into the bargain as well ...
DVDs. I know at least about half of them are available in region 1 encoding, because I own both those and the complete region 2 set.
For audiobooks, have a look at the Arkangel series— complete works as well, performed by casts featuring some pretty fabulous actors. Including Harriet Walter as Lady Macbeth ...
You can play them on your computer (as long as it's still got a CD drive), using either Windows Media Player or downloading VLC Media Player (free software, download from https://www.videolan.org/ -- this incidentally also plays DVDs). I haven't used a CD player in years, either ... other than the one in my car, that is.
The main reason, from my personal perspective, to read broadly is to increase our understanding of our world and ourselves, which is partially defined by the media that we and our peers consume. Past informs the present, which is why books like The Way We Are Now by Anthony Trollope or Hard Times by Charles Dickens or North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell remain relevant - they tell us something about who we were, and they continue to tell us something about who we are.
Any list that doesn't include genre fiction - romance, horror, crime, etc. - misses out on a whole lot of cultural literacy. Including genre fiction also allows the list maker to include more women and authors of color in the list, since "literary fiction" is, historically, predominantly the province of white males. Other authors were frequently isolated into genre fiction because their narratives weren't considered normative enough to get the imprimatur of universality.
Anyway, it's kind of an intriguing idea.
I bought this spreadsheet: https://arukiyomi.com/?page_id=4256 a few years ago that has all 1,300-odd titles and it was fun, but I don't actively try to read the list anymore
There is ANOTHER 1,000 books to read before you die book that is more diverse and includes non-fiction and children's titles: https://www.workman.com/products/1-000-books-to-read-before-you-die
I haven't read it back to front, but the entries are much more entertaining than most books of its type.
(1) Boxall's list contains a lot of high concept, artificial-style, "l'art pour l'art" books that, personally, aren't really my thing at all (also a *lot* of books spreading gloom and doom just because it's sooo intellectual to do that), BUT it also includes a large contingent of books not originally written in English, including books written one or even several centuries ago in languages other than English that are essential classics in their countries / cultures of origin but are decidedly less well-known in the English speaking world.
(2) Whereas the other list, by Prof. Mustich, is somewhat (not entirely, but by way of a tendency) more Anglo- and especially America-centric, its most interesting feature (to me) being the large number of nonfiction books that it includes; particularly biographies and books on history and politics, but also (popular) science and other topics.
I've created "status" shelves in my library for both lists -- not because I expect or even want to read every single book included in them, but simply to track my reading and, well, in a "just in case, whenever I happen to be in need of inspiration" frame of mind.
There's another list that I do actually plan to turn into a project one of these days, however, and that is the 133 book list compiled by Prof. Clifton Fadiman as a "Lifetime Reading Plan" for a well-rounded reader:
http://sonic.net/~rteeter/grtfad4.html
I may at some point also have a closer look at the Guardian's "1000 Novels" list (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/jan/23/bestbooks-fiction) -- though that, too, probably contains a lot of books I won't ever feel any compulsion to go anywhere near.
I received my copy of the Mustich book yesterday, and I am still perusing it. It does have some very interesting selections, and, so far overall, I think that I like the list a bit better, but, as you said, there's a significant number that I look at and think "nope."
http://sonic.net/~rteeter/grtfad4.html
I love it that he included three by Edith Wharton! Woohoo!
The Guardian list is, at first glance at least, my favorite of them all, because it includes subsections for crime (five Christies!), fantasy/sci fi, etc. I might try to c&p it into a document and print it and see how many I've already read.
The stuff from antiquity (or antiquity through the Middle Ages) is actually what I'm most interested in on Fadiman's list -- particularly the non-Western entries. I've read / seen performed the Greek mythology-related entries (Homer, Sophocles, etc.), though I've yet to get to the actual source texts on Greek philosophy, but virtually none of the non-Western stuff ... and yeah, unsurprisingly I'm doing better with the more recent entries in that list (19th and 20th centuries) as well.
For audiobooks, have a look at the Arkangel series— complete works as well, performed by casts featuring some pretty fabulous actors. Including Harriet Walter as Lady Macbeth ...