Boxall's 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die discussion

Hannah wrote: "Many may not agree, but I feel that Harry Potter should be here (if Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass counts, Harry Potter should). Aside from being massively popular and highly pr..."

With all due respect to J.K. Rowling, she is not fit to shine Lewis Carroll's boots

Deanne wrote: "That they may face the rising sun is 30 on the 2006 list."

Thanks. I can't imagine that the "30" is a rank...or it's taken quite a dive in 4 yrs. Still, I wonder how a book like that falls off the list. It's a treasure.

That's not true. JK Rowling has written the most influential series of children's books in history...perhaps you can argue that the "Alice" series was moreso. That's fine. And her prose, while not Dickens and not even Carroll, is solid. She tells a wonderful tale. She develops characters readers can love. And, the series will endure (that's obviously an untested assertion).

Christine wrote: "Lauli wrote: "With all due respect to J.K. Rowling, she is not fit to shine Lewis Carroll's boots "

Well, at least not as a writer. As a human being, however..."

Lauli wrote: "Hannah wrote: "Many may not agree, but I feel that Harry Potter should be here (if Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass counts, Harry Potter should). Aside from being massively popula..."

The reason I say that Rowling can't compare to Carroll is that Alice works at many layers, and disguised as a children's book, he is making deep statements about language, power, conventions, etc. Harry Potter is a well-written best-seller, I won't argue that, but there isn't much more to it than that.

I just joined the group, but the list's intention is, "Each work of literature listed here is a seminal work key to understanding and appreciating the written word.

That being said I would make an argument to include the HP series. In that it does create this in volumes in, a certain demographic, children that rarely read in an age of electronic devices and instant gratification. Yes, it is not Carrol, Lewis, or Tolkien, but just another addition to the that style that intrigues readers new and old, to well, read and enjoy literature.

"Harry Potter is not influential, it's the product of several influences. Nobody writes any differently because her books exist. She, however, would never have written that series without CS Lewis and Tolkien's influence. Popular is not synonymous with influential."

Style changes in writing come from the period they are written or period that will follow. And every author is influenced by other writers. That is like saying the blues isn't the root of rock and roll.

Stephen King and Anne Rice are both included on the list, and while I love both. They have self claimed themselves as grocery store fiction. I grew up reading King since that was what my mother was reading at the time.

I've only skimmed the list so far, but someone stated Elie Wiesel's Night, which is a must read. Also, The Road which was already mentioned. So far I haven't seen Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried which should be included along with Red Badge of Courage.

I am glad that so many authors got multiple works on the list though. BUT.

I think multiple authors have too many works included. I tend to read an entire author's work before moving on to another but really you can see bias in the "literary judges." 5 Conrad works while the Conrad expert is picking, that didn't happen by chance. I love Conrad, but not that much.

The list is highly skewed towards mid-modern British Literature, Russian Literature since that is the latest rediscovery in the academic literary movement. Yet Ovid is the only inclusion from early literate. No Shakespeare? Really I find that impossible.

Seminal:
1. influential: highly original and influential
2. capable of development: containing an idea or set of ideas that forms a basis for later developments


The argument against HP seems here to be that it's not "highly original", especially when put side-by-side with the authors previously mentioned who have done similar if not the same things before (and in some cases even better than Rowling did it). This is not to say that the HP books were not key in helping advance literacy rates in the world, but that often goes in waves any how. Keep in mind Frank Baum did something similar with the Wizard of Oz books in the early 20th-C. What Rowling did was not necessarily pave the way for anything new to follow, and based on the definition of the word seminal that would be important as far as judging here goes. Remember, this is not necessarily a list of popular authors or works. There are some things on this list that few people have heard of, like House by the Medlar Tree, and just because some things are or were on the bestseller list does not necessarily make them books everyone should read before they die. Otherwise The Da Vinci Code would be on this list also which (thankfully) it is not.

As far as the exclusion of Shakespeare it seems the consensus is that he primarily wrote plays and plays are not included in this list of Must-Reads. Ovid is poetry and granted there aren't a lot of poets on the list either which I agree is a shame, but his inclusion probably has a lot to do with the fact that he was an important forerunner in poetry. I don't know what the actual ruling is since I've not researched it before, but that's just my opinion.

I agree that HP has been great in motivating people who seldom read (especially children) to get through 700-page volumes, and that it might be a gateway to other great works of the same genre. But, hey, my teenage sister is reading Twilight, which I think we would all agree does not deserve a place in the list, and because of that influence has become a fan of 19th century Gothic literature. Does that mean the book should be included? I don't think so. We're talking about a canon of works that supposedly make up the best literature in the world, and the people consuming this list are supposed to be avid readers, so they wouldn't need a book like HP to get them motivated into reading.
Also, I think there are many popular books for children which are much better written than HP is, because their writers have a style, an aesthetic choice. Before including Rowling I would include some of Roald Dahl's work, which is popular and also great prose. But then again, if Coelho was included in the list, anyone might be.

I'll check out the newer version. I guess I missed O'Brien.

I should have said I understand the arguments for and against HP. I just lean more towards for.

And my blues to rock and roll reference wasn't towards HP it was towards authors being influenced by those before them.

Thanks.

I believe that the HP series is also on the children's 1001 list. I think that's what someone had mentioned before.

Harry Potter has been influential. Many modern fantasy writers owe Rowling thanks for repopularizing the fantasy genre with the mass market, instead of just the kids that play Dungeons and Dragons in their basements. So many fantasy books (sagas, trilogies), especially in the YA genre, have been sold at the bookstore by known and unknown authors because of the success has that Harry Potter has had. Similiarly, Anne Rice did the same with the vampire subgenre. How many authors started featuring vampires as protaganists after "Interview With the Vampire"?


If we excluded books for being influenced by other works, we would be chopping the list to significantly. There are books that are just so iconic to their genre that every other book written in the same category is compared to it. For example, we have Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Salman Rusdie on this list. They are masters of magical realism. Yet we have works by Isabel Allende and Arundhati Roy, two amazing authors who are heavily influenced by Marquez and Rushdie, both on this list.And in my opinion, they deserve to be there.

With all this being said, I think that Harry Potter is rightly placed on the children's list. Even though I was the first person to say,"ooh Harry Potter should be on this list" I could definitley see how avid adult readers would be digressing by reading this book. I enjoyed Harry Potter because I grew up with the books, and I still enjoy going back to them after a heavy read. HP is something that I would want my children to read to introduce them into literature, but not something I would recommend to someone who was well versed in lit.

Reply to Amanda (before reading Regine's).

First, you have no idea whether Rowling is now or will be influential on another generation of writers. Many of the "influential" writers of history died well before they were discovered and further yet before they became influential. But she certainly has had an enormous, maybe unprecedented influence on a generation of readers.

But we're not talking about whether Rowling will be influential, not being influential would eliminate many from the current list. The the thought expressed was whether the books or one of them deserve to be on this list. It is debatable but it's not absurd, especially when you look at some of the less than stellar offerings already on this list.

Now acknowledging Regine, I think the HP books could easily be on this list (and I by no means grew up with this!), if for no other reason, than to pay respect to a series of books that kept me reading through the night to finish and, like my children, left me eagerly awaiting the next one. That's quite a feat in my book.

But I'll admit that there are many adults who would die quite peacefully not having read the series, so leave HP on the children's list, he'll get in the right hands...and probably influence a number of them.

Amanda wrote: "Whatever, Bill. I do have an idea, or I wouldn't have said anything, and I was talking about whether or not she would be influential. Obviously, we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. ..."

Fair enough, Amanda. Didn't mean to be harsh just noting that you have an opinion of whether or not she'll be influential on future writers but no knowledge...and neither do I.

Beyond that, consider the horse dead.

And, yes, "Crime and Punishment" belongs here and my vote also goes for "That They May Face the Rising Sun," by John McGahern, which was also dropped. I can name a number of books on here that it could replace.

Bill
Amongst women was 30 on the original list because the 2006 list was in order of publishing, the older the book the higher the number. The 2008 list was the opposite way with the older books having a lower number. 1001 nights is number 1 on the 2008 list and 1001 on the 2006 list. Helps to find the books if you know roughly when they were published.
As to books that are on the list, have to admit I hated both Henry Millers books, the tropic of cancer and the the tropic of capricorn. However I know there are people out there who love these books, it's a personal thing.

thanks. i certainly have no issue with taste. heck, i confess, i've argued for Harry Potter in this forum!!

but i'm wondering how the lists are created, that a book like "May They Face the Rising Sun" is on the list one year and falls off the next. is there a point in time when everyone votes? is like major league baseball, you get to view a list and say yea or nay (and vote more than once?!!)

I read tropic of cancer when I was young

oops...meant to say, I read Tropic of Cancer when I was young. Can't say I liked it enough either a) to remember it well or b) to read Tropic of Capricorn.

I think Amanda is right about the process. Boxall's just the guy who puts the whole kit and caboodle together. I think it's interesting that (according to Wikipedia - I've not done a count myself) Coetzee and Dickens are the most-listed authors in the bunch. I consider them such different writers.

I think we can't ignore that one of the purposes of the list is also selling books, so I don't think all the choices are based on the author's personal criteria, but there are commercial issues also, which would explain the inclusion of certain best-selling, popular authors.

I guess I have a different understanding of the 1001 series (which includes movies, food, historic sites, paintings, etc.). I took them simply as reference books, not money-making avenues. I mean, how does one make money off of 1001 Paintings You Must See Before You Die? (Not speaking directly about the publisher and/or editor who may receive royalties from the sales of the book itself... or is that what you meant by "commercial issues", Lauli?)

What I meant by "commercial" is that many people (myself included) will be buying many of the books and reading them because they are on the list, and this boosts sales of books. There is clearly in the list an emphasis on contemporary writing (according to the last edition almost 800 of the books listed are 20th and 21st century), and these books are more profitable to publishing houses than classics. In other lists, like Bloom's canon, the proportion of books from different times in history is much more balanced. But then again, it might be just an impression.

An author that I think was overlooked on this list is Timothy Findley, particularly Not Wanted On The Voyage, and Last Of The Crazy People

The only comment I can make about HP is that it is a children or YA book/s. I have never read them (although my friend keeps hounding me to). I guess my thinking is there are so many adult books I would rather read than a children's book.
I guess the 1001 list could drive up sales of books on the list, but I have to say most of the books I get from the list are used or really cheap....especially if I am unsure if I will even like it. I guess I would hope the point of the book would be to actually pick books which "should" be read and not for commercialism.

So far, the list has exposed me to books that I wouldn't have found without it. I love Harry Potter, and will re-read the books until the day I die. I'd rather the list show me good books that I haven't heard so much about, though. I don't know if that's exactly the point of the list, but it's a big part of what I use it for...? Especially for newer books.

Erik wrote: "So far, the list has exposed me to books that I wouldn't have found without it. I love Harry Potter, and will re-read the books until the day I die. I'd rather the list show me good books that I ha..."

Totally agree

I think that several books by the same author is not such a good idea if they fall in the same genre. I don't think the purpose of the List was just to name the best novels or novelists, but to show the variety of authors, styles, genres, etc. that have influenced the evolution of the novel. I don't think the contributors would argue that each book listed is the "best" of its kind, but they would argue that it was influential -- maybe as an example, because it was the first of what later was developed more fully. That has been my understanding since I first discovered the Lists.
,

Lauli wrote: But then again, if Coelho was included in the list, anyone might be.

I just read this now. I completely agree!

I feel the main purpose of any book list is just to get people interested in books and reading.

Why the 1001 list was made is not really important. The only important thing is why you are using the list.

Take a piece of paper, for instance. The manufacturer may have made it so people may write on it. But a child may not use it for that purpose but to make a paper plane. A fish vendor may use it to wrap fish.

Linda wrote: "Chel, you took the titles out of my mouth! Red Badge of Courage, one of the first realistic war stories, should be there, and definitely something by Pearl Buck. I also feel that leaving Ray Bradbu..."

I second Fahrenheit 451 for the list.

Joselito wrote: "Why the 1001 list was made is not really important. The only important thing is why you are using the list.

Take a piece of paper, for instance. The manufacturer may have made it so people may w..."

Excellent point!

If the list is one of seminal books that had a lot of influence on readers and writing, then something by Anais Nin - Little Birds or Delta of Venus - should be included. She certainly was influential.

Early in my teens, Paul Zindel had a profound impact on my understanding of life outside my provincial community and radicalized my view of "young adult" literature (a far cry from Black Beauty!) - Nat Hentoff & Robert Cormier, too.

Gini wrote: "If the list is one of seminal books that had a lot of influence on readers and writing, then something by Anais Nin - Little Birds or Delta of Venus - should be included. She certainly was influential."

Delta of Venus is on the list. Not sure about the others, though.

Cindy wrote: Delta of Venus is on the list. Not sure about the others, though."

I stand corrected! I missed it in my perusing. Thanks!

I understand not catering to specific authors by overloading the list with their works - but in the same regard - what is served by putting a marginal work by an author on the list and cutting down outstanding authors? Leaving out a great author's lesser work (although still outstanding) and narrowing them down to their absolute best? There are quite a few recently added works that I don't feel will stand up aganist time - meanwhile, some awesome prolific authors have been shorted because their "lesser" works have been cut leaving only their "best" work. But those lesser works are often greater than even the marginal author's best work. I'm just worried that as time passes outstanding authors are going to be limited down to one work each, so that lesser authors can have their more mediocre works listed.

Amanda wrote: "I'd rather read 10 Dickens than any Coetzee, Delillo, or McEwan..."

Hear, hear!

Amanda wrote: "I'd rather read 10 Dickens than any Coetzee, Delillo, or McEwan..."

Well I like Atonement. =) But I agree, I would rather read 10 of any of the 'standard' authors than 1 mediocre work by a modern author. The best are the best. Its a bit unfair to force them off the list because they just have too many good novels and we should only pick their very best two. Sort of an Incredibles thing going on. =)

And I like DeLillo...and Dickens. So I'm perfectly fine with both authors being represented. Multiple times.

I'm a fan of Rand as a writer (please don't shoot me); I think her best-written and most engaging work is We the Living, which should be on the list. And I just finished My Antonia, which I was shocked to find is not on the list.

Isn't there a way to get "The Good Earth" on the list? Story is compelling, eternal, and universal. Writing reminds me of Bible stories.

Amanda wrote: "Whatever, Bill. I do have an idea, or I wouldn't have said anything, and I was talking about whether or not she would be influential. Obviously, we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. ..."

Bill wrote: "Reply to Amanda (before reading Regine's).


First, you have no idea whether Rowling is now or will be influential on another generation of writers. Many of the "influential" writers of history die..."

Crime and Punishment is still on the latest version of the list...

FWIW, I soooo agree that The Good Earth should be on the list.

Karen, I take the approach of making my very own list. I use the 1001 must read list as a guide, rejecting outright about 20% of them--too many by a single author, not written in my native language, sounds depressing, etc.

Then, I add my own list, to be referred to as "favorites" on my Goodreads account, if you're interested. Welcome to the group, Karen.

Okay, maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but did they take Gabriel Garcia Marquez off the list? One Hundred Years of Solitude should be on the list.

Tony wrote: "FWIW, I soooo agree that The Good Earth should be on the list."


I think it was on the list, but it got cut out. I agree though, it should be on the list as well.

Regine wrote: "I think {The Good Earth} was on the list, but it got cut out. I agree though, it should be on the list as well."

The Good Earth has never been on the list.

Regine wrote: "Okay, maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but did they take Gabriel Garcia Marquez off the list? One Hundred Years of Solitude should be on the list."

One Hundred Years of Solitude has been on the list since 2006 and has not been removed. And No One Writes to the Colonel was added in 2008.

Good to know.

Amanda wrote: "If they removed 100 Years of Solitude I would lose all faith in the list."

Even though I disliked the book and found it frustrating, I have to agree because of its influence on the magical realism trend.

Amanda wrote: "If they removed 100 Years of Solitude I would lose all faith in the list."


Ditto.

If they remove 100 Years of Solitude I might rejoice because that could mean somebody wrote a novel much better than that and the editors found that novel and decided to substitute 100 Years with that.

Or it could mean they needed a slot for one of the modern novels released since the last printing. :( I've never read 100 years so I have no opinion on the matter.