Most people who say "Hmmm, they didn't include X" and cite some literary classic usually haven't looked at the actual 1001 books book itself but judge the work simply from the list online. The 1001 book explains clearly in its introduction that the list is a collection that attempts to trace the history of the novel with each work contributing something important to the development of that genre.

Thus, plays, religious texts, poetry etc, with very few exceptions (Eugene Onegin being a notable one, but the only one I can think of off the top of my head) are not included in the list. Hence, Goethe's Faust and the Divine Comedy do not feature. You may, of course, be critical of this focus on novels and I think there's weight behind the argument that it should be called 1001 Novels... and not just books. But I hope that explanation explains what seem like glaring omissions.

Yeah, that list is a bit depressing. It's hard to not feel like an illiterate loser when comparing your own list of books to that 1001 list. I think a better list would be the "100 Greatest Books Ever Written" by Easton Press. I'll create a thread for that list to see what you guys have read.

Interesting list indeed, a few of those books have made it onto my blog as well, at www.ratemybooks.com

Oh my gosh, I've only read 36 so 3.6% :O

It is an interesting list, especially how it has changed over the years.

I've read 41 books from the most recent list and am interested in reading only 50 of the remaining books.

Well, I haven't posted on this thread for a while. Been busy reading the list... and making the the iPhone app to help you track progress with the list:
itunes.apple.com/lv/app/1001-books/id50 ... 1&mt=8

should be available for Android etc in a couple of months.

To get the latest updates on the app, you can "Like" our Facebook page:
facebook.com/pages/1001-Books-App/28924 ... 2394463476

Seems like a pretty arbitrary list, at least for a lot of them.

I thought about trying to go through "the classics" at some point, but then I figure I don't want to feel obligated to read books that I'm really not that interested in.

not arbitrary at all actually. In the intro to the book, Boxall clearly spells out that the purpose of the list is to chart the development of the artform of the novel worldwide. Each novel has a place in that development which each book description elaborates on.

bleachededen wrote:Since I have no life, am incredibly curious, and am obsessive-compulsive/anal retentive, I decided to go through the entire list and pick out which books I have read, plan to read, or have not read but seen as a movie or musical. The results are as follows:

Bleachededen's list is so much more manageable than the originial 1001! I have read many of the books on the abbreviated list, also. I am a teacher, and we use many of these books in our English class, including "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", which we are reading right now.

The 1001 title list is just way too long. However, I think that any list is good to provide recommendations. I used to read more booklists, but don't have time any more especially one as long as this one.

Coralie

130 for me from the original 2006 list, but it's still pretty laughable in some of its inclusions. The argument that each work has some seminal weight behind it just doesn't hold water, especially with the way it blatantly loots vast sections of some oeuvres just for the sake of making up numbers.