This morning I read this review in the NY Times about a new compilation of the "1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die." The article links to the list, which of course led me to assessing myself.
I've read eighty-five of the books on the list, which isn't very good I'm afraid which means, I guess, that I have been reading all the wrong things. I did surprisingly well in the 1800s which I guess can be explained by my college obsession with all things Thomas Hardy and Edith Wharton. If you add the books that I have started, but never finished I am up to 97. That's almost ten percent
I gave myself credit for Last of the Mohicans, even though I've only read the Pioneers, but I think if you've read one of Fenimore Cooper's books, you should get credit for all of them. I also think that because I have started a half a dozen of Dickens' books but haven't finished any of them, I should get credit for at least one of them.
One of the books on the list is Joseph Andrews, which for me is the symbol of all of my failings as an undergraduate. I keep a copy of it on my shelf which I promise myself I will one day read just to make up for all of the assigned books that I failed to read. (I think my guilt is mainly caused by the fact that even though I didn't read many things, I still got very good grades). I didn't count Joseph Andrews, but I think maybe I should because of my good intentions.
If you count all of the film adaptations I have seen (of books I have not read), then I can move my number up to 128.
If I add the books that I have heard so much about that I feel like I have read them, I am at 157.
If I add the books that are on my shelves, but I have not yet read I am at 171.
That's still not very good.
But if I consider that I am only 34 which means I have only been reading this sort of book for 18 years then that's an average of four books a year that I've actually read. That's respectable.
And why are none of the Faulkner books that I've read on this list? Whatever.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Okay. I'm at 141. And I'm watching "Clueless." How to interpret? I might have included books I didn't finish like "Lord Jim" and others. But if I started them....you know.
What a bizarre list. Jack London's The Iron Heel? An awful novel. This is not a good list. Perhaps you've been reading the right books all along Assertively Unhip.
Yes, it is a strange list (it's British; that explains everything right?). And some of the books aren't even books. The Fall of the House of Usher? Excellent, yes, but not really a book.
I know, I went through it, and I thought, sheesh, well, if they're counting *stories* as novels, okay. It is a bizarre list. The Story of O? Delta of Venus? But I did pretty well, countwise, unless I got messed up on my counting, which I very well might have. Still, I will construct yet another "must read" list out of some of the items on this list, so thanks for directing our attention!
1. I hope you didn't actually count the books but instead guesstimated
2. I was assigned Joseph Andrews in an 18th century lit class and am not a better person for having read it. I can't really remember anything about it and believe reading more Samuel Johnson would have been more important for soul and knowledge.
3. My count--81 read, 15 owned but not read, 28 only watched, 12 maybe read or at least started. (scratch #1--I couldn't resist)
4. Mega do not demure--we want the total!
5. Having recently studied up on the history of sci-fi, this list surprisingly includes many of these--Jules Verne, William Gibson etc.
6. Psychotherapy as response to lists: MB's response, "this is a bizarre...not a good list" in contrast to Mega's "this is a bizarre list...still I will construct a new reading list."
Post a Comment