Review: 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die

[persimmonfrost]

This is a curious book with a curious notion behind it: That one must read certain books in order to feel well-read. It's not enough to be a voracious reader if all we read are the latest magazines and newspapers, or the latest best-seller, or loads of junklit. This is a book which purports to be a reference to literature which has had an impact on the world, and on our collective imagination, but it omits such obvious influences as Shakespeare and The Bible without explanation of any sort. Surely these two works have had as much influence on the Western world as all the rest put together, and Shakespeare, at least, has a universal appeal which cuts across any religious lines.

A quick examination shows a volume weighted heavily towards contemporary literature. More than 700 of its 900+ pages are devoted to 20th and 21st century works. While I don't doubt that many, if not most, of these works are worth reading, I would question the notion that all have and will continue to have a great impact on world thought. While I am heartened to find works by many non-Western authors within the same two chapters, I have to wonder why so few appear in earlier chapters. I also can't help but wonder about why pre-eighteenth century literature is limited to about 20 pages, and we go from Aesop to the 19th century in about 150 pages.

I spent a couple of hours marking each book I'd already read - an occupation more amusing than useful - and discovered to my dismay that I'm not nearly as well-read as I'd hoped. At least by the standards of this book. And yet by most standards I know I am well-read. Again, curious.

In all honesty, as interesting and even useful as I find this book, I find that my objections to both inclusions and exclusions to be about equal. While the commentary is good, often fascinating, I don't see that it can make up for the weight given to contemporary and Western literature, particularly English-language works.

Comments

[potted_music]

Usually such lists only become a fascinating read if the reader is interested in their compilers' personalities & views. In that respect, they can be quite revealing (I still love the list Harold Bloom provides in "The Western Canon" with a fierce power of a thousand suns), but otherwise, not so useful.

I spent a couple of hours marking each book I'd already read - an occupation more amusing than useful

Yes, I do that often too, out of morbid curiousity of sorts XD

[persimmonfrost]

I got the book out of idle curiosity and because I'd joined the 1001 Books... on Library thing. I'd honestly thought that it might prove helpful now that I'm reading more again. And I suspect it will be if only for the contemporary info. But it was disappointing in most other respects.

[sphinxfictorian]

I find that for the most part, what other people think we should read and what I myself want to read are usually widely and wildly divergent. A reviewer for the Washington Post Book World, Michael Dirda, has written some really lovely reviews, that have been collected in several different tomes, including Bound to Please. The nice thing about Dirda's reviews is his palpable enthusiasm for the books he's reviewing. These are books he wants everyone to experience so that they can share in his enthusiasm, not so that they can call themselves "well-read", whatever that really means.

Anyway, I highly recommend picking up one of his essay collections. He's a wonderful writer and I've picked up some interesting books thanks to him.

[persimmonfrost]

Thanks! I do have a weakness for meta about books. If nothing else, doing this review has given me some more books to look for.