17 comments:

Laura E. Goodin said...

Hm. I've read fewer than 25%. I confess literary novels are not my favorite pool to swim in, and there were sadly way too few genre novels on that list for MY taste, but still -- can I really be as uneducated as all that, after over 40 years of CEASELESS reading?

I find these lists depressing. No -- no, I don't. I hereby abjure and repudiate their power over me. Away, foolish lists, away! If I sail the more obscure lanes of the literary sea, the more brave, I!

Friday, January 16, 2009

Satima Flavell said...

Besides, they are put together by journos who haven't read ANY of the books on them:-)

Friday, January 16, 2009

Daniel Best said...

Moby Dick? Reading anything by Melville is like reading ANYTHING by Tolstoy - why would you bother? You read them and realise that you've just lost hours out of your life that you'll never be able to reclaim. I've actually read around 75% of that list and to be honest I'd recommend very few of them. Orwell, absolutely. Same with Huxley (who doesn't make that list, which shows me that whoever put it together is an idiot) - 1984, Animal Farm and Brave New World are as important and vital today as they ever were - even more so actually, considering the climate of the day. Those books I always say people need to read, so off you go, I think Angus & Robbos have them out for around $2 each these days. But Jane Eyre? Please! It's crap! I hope this does offend people, but really, Bronte and Austin were just the Barbara Cartland of their era.

Heart Of Darkness, yes, and a few others, but that list looks like it was assembled by committee to impress someone. "Oh, see at how intellectual I can appear if I name drop Nabokov!" Well, dropping that name didn't do Sting any favours did it? "Pretentious wanker," we all cried at the time, "you've ruined a perfectly good song with your dickheaded lyrics pal. De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da my arse! Gives us another Message In A Bottle!" And it certainly doesn't impress the girls, or boys, or sheep - whatever the preference.

Am curious, no Stephen King? You may chuckle Satima, but The Stand is an impressive book no matter how you slice it and his early period, books such as Salem's Lot and The Shining are as good as anything I've read for structure and content. Oh, hang on, he's popular and not dead. Poop!

No bloody C.S. Lewis?!? I guess they've never seen The Screwtape Letters or the modern retelling of the gospel, cleverly titled The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe, or they didn't have the required page count to be counted. As we all know, the more pages the better the book (hey, I've actually read War & Peace, read it in year 12, and I wish I hadn't. Thankfully I can't remember it. It never impressed anyone though). No Bram Stoker? *coughbullshitcough*

Steinbeck? Well, yep, although Grapes of Wrath is a book in dire need of an editor. Great imagery, but it does kind of get tiresome after a while. "Fascinatingly boring," was how I described it in a book report in year 11, causing my English teacher to spit his tea onto his desk during class, to much amusement.

Nah, seriously, I abhor lists like these, especially when they're not credited to any one person, and could spend the day pulling it apart. But then that's why I predominately read non-fiction these days. And most print journo's only read their own articles, or they pore over obscure magazines in search of material to steal.

And even my mental case of a cat Klerqy knows that the only good Wuthering Heights was written by that great 20th century poet laureate, K Bush. "Heathcliff, it's me, it's Cathy and I'm caaallling oooohhhh, wooah woooah woooooaaahhh"

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Satima Flavell said...

Heh heh - even better was a send up of the song and the novel that kept cropping up in a comedy show on TV in the seventies (might've been Dave Allen, but don't count on it) which depicted Heathcliffe and Cathy chasing each other about the Yorkshire Moors, never quite catching up and getting into scrapes every time.

Yup, litrachure is, if nothing else, fertile ground for comment and comedy!

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Jo said...

We could make our own lists of 100 which would be equally impressive and erudite, but someone else wouldn't agree with a lot of the choices. I think its all a matter of personal preference. I guess I didn't do very well with this list although I too had seen some of the movies.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Graham Clements said...

I've read ten of them, some of them by choice. Only one Australian on the list (Peter Carey), or did I miss someone?

I have always wondered what the fuss about 100 years of solitude was. I have read many better fantasy novels. It reminded me of a film I watched late one night at uni (whether I was stoned or drunk, I can't remember) where the leader of a popular revolution, lets call him Georgio Bushio, installs himself as absolute dictator. He is overthrown by Tonio Blario who then declares himself absolute dictator and is subsequently overthrown by Johnnie Hunt. Maybe it was an adapted film version of a 100 years. For me, the novel had the not too subtle message that ignorate people are doomed to repeat their mistakes. Especially people who sit it corners refusing to speak to anyone. So what was the fuss about.

The same goes for the Great Gatsby. But I read that when I was about twelve in high school so I probably missed any messages or themes. I might read it again, after I've finished the 600 or so novels sitting in my bookshelves that are unread.

Interestingly, I watched a doco on the writer of 100 years and he said that when he decided to become a writer he went and read as many of the classics as he could, and learnt very little. He said he learnt more from reading what was current. I wonder if he or the people who gave him the nobel prize had ever read any fantasy before hand.

Graham.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Satima Flavell said...

If you call fantasy "magical realism" and have it shelved in the shops as "literature" it might well win awards and gain fame and fortune for its writer. However, since such stuff is often written by pretentious twits who refuse to read real fantasy, most fantasy fans will see through the ruse at once and classify it as "bad fantasy":-) I think you're right, Jo: it all gets a bit precious and one person's list is as good as another's, when all's said and done.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Marilyn Z. Tomlins said...

Satima --

Glad to see they've got Dr. Zhivago there!

Marilyn

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Anonymous said...

Did the covering article say why we should read these in particular?

I've read quite a few of them (including the Stendhal in French, which should get me lots of points, but probably doesn't count because it was for uni.) I wonder if it's meant to be a broadly representative list of literary fiction (is Hitchhiker's Guide literary fiction?) rather than a 'best' list. If we're going to be literary, I'd have to add Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell and just about anything by Jose Saramago, probably the deceptively titled The History of the Siege of Lisbon.

I much prefer personal lists. This one seems a bit like 'reading because it's good for you, like a cold shower' rather than 'reading because you love to read.'

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Satima Flavell said...

You know, Marilyn, I think some of those books made better movies than reading matter. And I agree, Juliet; all very Good for You, like cod-liver oil, but you wouldn't take CLO for fun, would you?

Hey guys, how about we do a blog chain one day, each listing our fave books? Mind you, I've tried before and it was tha same with books as it was with music - too many favourites and too many authors and genres to list in any meaningful way.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Jo said...

Don't think I could select 100 favourites, I have so many I love. As mentioned on Glenda's site, I still have all my Georgette Heyer romances which, whilst light reading, are among my most favourites. My nomination for one of the best books of the 20th Century was Shogun by James Clavell. But there are lots and lots and lots of others. As Laura said after (in my case) over 50 years of CEASLESS reading there's a lot of stuff I have covered.

Monday, January 19, 2009

Gabriele Campbell said...

I read about 80% of those and liked most of them. But my reading tastes have always been very eclectic, and my shelves puzzle most visitors. :)

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Satima Flavell said...

Eighty per cent, Gabriele? Wow! If there were prizes you'd have won one, for sure:-) You're a better reader than I am. Gabri-din!

Jo, I regret to say that I haven't read any GH for years, but I did enjoy her when I was younger, I loved Shogun as well - or was it another one by Clavell, about a man in Japan who somehow got stuck there because when he tried to leave they burnt his ship. Anyway, it was a ripping read:-) After 62 years of reading (no kidding!) I have trouble sorting Adams from Zelazny and everyone in between!

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Jo said...

Yes that was Shogun where they burned his ship. The story was actually based on fact and the pilot in question was a man from where we used to live in Kent. There is a memorial there. His name was Will Adams. I have read the book several times, I think it is such a great story and well written.

62 years, I guess I can claim 65 I know I was reading at 5, possibly before.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Annette Lyon said...

Interesting list. I would have expected a lot of different ones to be on it that weren't. I've read roughly the same number you have (although probably half are different). Liked some. Hated some. Adored others. Just the other day my daughter asked me to name my top 3 favorite books. Could't do it!

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Satima Flavell said...

If you're like me, Annette, your favourites probably change year to year, or at least decade by decade. Even so, I'm hard put to name a top ten at any given time!

Jo, you and I are are old enough to have read a huge variety of books and to have seen styles change dramatically over the years. Stuff I loved as a child would not get published now - the old omnicient, head-hopping, intrusive-author style drives me nuts when I read it today. But OTOH, stuff that's being written now would not have been acceptable back then, either. Especially the amount of sex that you find now, even in YA books. Autre temps, autres mores.

Thanks for clearing ne up on Shogun. I shall have to read it again.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Sunday, November 22, 2009