Historical Fictionistas discussion

I keep a spreadsheet of reading lists here. (with my progress)

I believe these can be copied for others use - just take out my "Y"'s
I made them and I don't mind if someone uses them to track their progress.

List Summaries:
The Idiot's Guide to the Ultimate Reading List Ch1 - Historical Fiction: 45 (63%)
1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die* - 357 (36%)
1001 Children's Books You Must Read Before You Grow Up - 144 (14%)
100 novels everyone should read (A Telegraph selection of the essential fiction) - 71 (71%)
All-TIME 100 Best Nonfiction Books (2011) - 46 (46%)
Abe Books - Size Does Matter. The Longest Novels - 8 (53%)
The Idiot's Guide to the Ultimate Reading List (all books) - Count in progress


* I'm updating to the 2010 version as I have time. Please excuse the mess.

Opinion corner: I'm starting to seriously question the 1001 list choices in terms of recent additions / and especially the 20th & 21st c. selections. I get the feeling (as this is the second time I've gone through and pulled / reworked their updated list) that they aren't following their own criterion, rather they are looking to highlight newer novels to push sales. To wit - while I find that there may be many excellent novels in a given year, adding 10-12 from that year seems excessive. This list should be about quality under the criterion and to stand the test of time. Not "oh we need 5-10 from any year after 1940" Also unless a writer is TRULY brilliant or has had an extremely long writing career putting more than one book of theirs onto the list seems foolish. Certainly no more than two from any author.* Select a seminal work, people will naturally investigate that author if they liked the book.

I'll toss this in as well. While I'm glad that they have opened the list up to works not originally in English, I also believe that they need to include more of these works - I can think of at least 6 that aren't on there that are stellar examples of the list criterion. They aren't doing anyone any favors by excluding them. (although I doubt that the authors who are long gone really mind)

* An example of this it the Rabbit series by John Updike. While I agree that he is an influential writer and should be on the list - having several from that series alone is pointless. It also defeats the criterion of the list. There are other works by other authors that could be represented. (and needless to say have been culled already)

That is awesome and it looks like you put a lot of work into it! My list is so basic I feel ashamed by yours....LOL

jennbunny wrote: "That is awesome and it looks like you put a lot of work into it! My list is so basic I feel ashamed by yours....LOL"

Thank you but don't feel that way. I didn't start out with all that I've refined them over a few years. =) (well not the 1001.. that was a bear from the start) If your list does what you need it to its perfect (that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it!)

LOL good advise. I am still working on my list....I am not sure how I want it to look yet. PLUS I need to some lessons with Excel.