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

I have read and listened to many of the books on this list and tried to be fair even though my preference is classic literature. I've noticed that there are way too many new authors with multiple books. One book needs to be listed as the author's best and if the reader likes it he or she can read more. I have taken to just crossing off all the books from one reader if I read or listen to a current book and it wasn't my style. I'm left wondering if I missed something good because I listened or read something not so good. But for a list of 1000 books to read before one dies this contains a lot of fluff and stuff that I would never even consider putting on a list of must read books.

Does anyone else feel this way?

Sounds like you want a 1000 books to read before Dianna dies list. I agree that I think some books are simply awful and I won't ever want to read them but they are all up there for a reason. I believe that reason is that someone in the world thinks they deserve to be there. Regarding multiple books for authors: a sign that an author is good to me and deserving of multiple tries.

Dianna wrote: "I have read and listened to many of the books on this list and tried to be fair even though my preference is classic literature. I've noticed that there are way too many new authors with multiple b..."

which list are you reading?

One book needs to be listed as the author's best and if the reader likes it he or she can read more

Absolutely impossible...

A list of the crappy books on the 1001 books to read before you die list:

The Midwich Cuckoos by John Wyndham
The Comfort of Strangers Ian McEwan
Saturday by Ian McEwan
Under the Volcano Malcolm Lowry
Underworld Don Delillo
The Story of Lucy Gault William Trevor
The Lambs of London Peter Ackroyd

I agree with you, Dianna. The list is seriously weakened by the multiple entries for authors. It is impossible to pick just one best work for some authors, but so also is it impossible to pick 1001 books everyone should read before they die. It would be more impressive to pick one and argue why.

I suspect I will end up crossing off those I cannot stand rather than subject myself to their additional works. That said, everyone hates something different. I use the list to find new-to-me great literature. There is nothing else quite like it, and if nothing else it has sparked some great discussions in the reading world.

Thank you all for your comments. I guess 1000 books is just probably too much for one list.

Dianna wrote: "A list of the crappy books on the 1001 books to read before you die list:

The Midwich Cuckoos by John Wyndham
The Comfort of Strangers Ian McEwan
Saturday by Ian McEwan
Under the Volcano Malcolm L..."

I certainly appreciate anyone's right to dislike a book and I actually haven't read any of those books listed so I can't offer a personal opinion.

Although I would modify your comment to read 'books that I think are crappy' because any book that someone trashes is going to be a treasured favourite by someone else's standards. Whether or not it should be included in the 1001 list.

I agree Nicola. Personally haven't read any of them either, actually only heard of one, and that is because my best friend is a great great lover of Peter Ackroyd and counts that book as among her favourites ever.

Elle wrote: "Sounds like you want a 1000 books to read before Dianna dies list. I agree that I think some books are simply awful and I won't ever want to read them but they are all up there for a reason. I beli..."

"I believe that reason is that someone in the English speaking world thinks they deserve to be there" would be a more correct sentence. There isn't even a book from every country, and only a couple from many, and having more books from one author than from several countries doesn't sound quite right. I would rather have one main book from one author, maybe a couple if they are truly great, but otherwise a more diverse list.

The book doesn't claim to be analyzing all books in the world, and it's not actually saying that these are the only books to read before you die. The authors just decided that of the books that have come into their sphere, these are the 1001 they agree on. It's completely subjective. Honestly, shy of AIs actually being invented and analyzing books, I think we have to just go with subjective opinions. Or we buy someone else's opinions instead.

Of course it's flawed. Any list is flawed. Just as any award is flawed. Anything is flawed that is made by people. Because, as Sarah said, it's subjective. I have hated some of the books from this list that others have loved. And I am sure I have loved ones others have hated.

I know I will never finish this list, because there are books on it I won't read due to extreme lack of interest. But it is a great place to start when looking for new authors or interesting books. Even ones I don't love I can appreciate. Usually.

For me, a book being on this list just gives it a slight bump in favor of reading. If I'm debating between two or three books and one is on the list then I'll read that one.

I also have no desire to read the entire list.

Well, when people make a list of 1000 books to read before you die I would think that anyone who isn't ethnocentric toward English speaking writers would probably include books from other cultures.

I can certainly call a book crappy if I want to. That's the great thing about having freedom of speech :) I'm very thankful that I only had listened to those crappy books that I listed on CD and didn't waste time reading them. I wish the Mid Continent Public Library had a better selection and didn't contain so many crappy selections on the shelves and did contain more of what I would consider classic literature. Of course, anyone should read whatever they want. I would welcome opinions from others who have read a wide range of books as have I, on what might be worthwhile and what might not.

By the way, I hardly ever read popular fiction because most of it isn't worthwhile to me so I would never read anything by Dean Koontz, for example.

What I'm reading is that you don't like popular fiction or the selection that these authors have put together. Have you tried your local library as a resource? This particular site has nothing to do with what is published in this book so this feedback won't reach them.

Yes, as I mentioned above, I wish the library had a better selection. I just wondered if anyone else had the same thoughts and feelings about the list as being somewhat disappointing.

No, I was actually thinking a librarian that will help you find things that you want. Sort of like Google, but human. They would also be able to help you request things from other libraries rather than being limited to what they have. I do hope you find what you're looking for. Finding more ideas is why I joined goodreads.

Thank you. Yes, I order books through inter library loans all the time but I think there might be a difference in our perceptions or something. I love goodreads. I don't love the 1001 list. That doesn't mean I can't benefit from it, of course. I have found some good books through it. In fact, I listed the ones I liked in another post.

I like to listen to books on CD when I am driving and it is a good way not to have to waste my time, especially if I pick up a CD that I find to be ridiculous. I guess if I were going to take the time to make a list I would be more thorough. I just wondered if anyone else could relate to this.

Yes, there does seem to be a difference in our perceptions. I use the 1001 list as just another resource. One of many, but not the only one. Also, Dean Koontz is my favorite author.

Tytti wrote: "Elle wrote: "Sounds like you want a 1000 books to read before Dianna dies list. I agree that I think some books are simply awful and I won't ever want to read them but they are all up there for a r..."


Oh I definitely agree with you there. I think it's mostly left unsaid that this list is very centred around English speaking books although a fair few are translated also so at least we have some representation.

Dianna wrote: "A list of the crappy books on the 1001 books to read before you die list:

The Midwich Cuckoos by John Wyndham
The Comfort of Strangers Ian McEwan
Saturday by Ian McEwan
Under the Volcano Malcolm L..."

Diana, many others had some of the same criticisms as you of the original (2006) list/book, eg, that it has too many books by some authors and is too Amerio- and Eurocentric. Those criticisms have led to changes in subsequent editions, with more diversity in the number of authors and their nationalities. For example, Ian McEwan had 10 books listed in the 1st edition, but has only 2 in the 2012 edition (although Jane Austen didn't lose any of her 6). More Latin American authored books are included in the 2012 edition. such as "Dirty Havana Trilogy" by Pedro Juan Gutierrez of Cuba and "A World for Julius" by Alfredo Bryce Echinique ('70) of Peru, and others like "Half of a Yellow Sun" by Chimamanda Adichie of Nigeria. Of the seven books you listed as being awful, three were dropped: "The Comfort of Strangers" and "Saturday" by McEwan and "The Lambs of London" by Ackroyd (another of Ackroyd's 3 books was also dropped, leaving him just one).
I'm not saying the newer editions remove all flaws, but it is clearly improved. And certainly one person's trash will be another's treasure and vice-versa. I don't want to try to read all 1001, but I started off having read about 90 and have a goal of getting to 200 by about a year from now (currently I'm at 171 from the 2006 edition plus 2 more from the '12 edition that weren't in the '06). I usually won't read any book with an average rating of less than 3.5 on Goodreads; there are plenty of books that are well thought of by experts and also well-liked by most readers. I've found that when a book meets both criteria, I usually, though not always, like it.

I am happy to hear that they have tried to update the list. My list is probably the oldest one there is. Thanks for your input.

Dianna, have you ever had a look at the actual book and read some of the explanations for why certain books are included?

You might find it interesting.

Books are included for a wide variety of reasons. Some because they're classics. Others because they were historically influential on English language Literature in general. And others because they were influential on English language pop-culture.

My interpretation, after browsing some of the entries, is that the list is meant to be a primer of sorts to the history of English language culture and not necessarily a definitive list of the "best" books printed in English.

Some pop fiction is on the list because regardless of the quality of the writing, it's influenced the culture.

And sometimes, multiple books form a single author make the list because they wrote multiple influential books.

But I hear you on some of your complaints... Three's several newer authors with multiple books on the list that one book was more than enough for me. I just mentally cross off their remaining books and move on.

I think I read that some of the newer books make it seem like it is groundbreaking/great literature. The more reviews like that for a book, the more likely it is to be included on the list.

Just my two cents here: nobody's list is going to be the same when it comes to enjoyable books or great literature. It is almost impossible. So, any list ever created will be flawed for everyone except for the person making that list. For instance, "A Clockwork Orange" is considered by many to be one of the best books ever written and I just couldn't stomach it at all. I despise Charles Dickens with a passion hotter than the fiery sun, but I know many who would disagree with me. That doesn't make them wrong, it makes them different from me- which is totally expected and as it should be. Use Boxall's list how you think it suits you best.

Yes, thank you. I guess I should have been more aware of the fact that they have altered the list as the years have gone by and this helps my logical mind to see that some of those books that were awful are no longer on the list.

I do realize that no list is going to be perfect for everyone. My main issue was with the amount of flaws in the list as it was originally written, I guess.

I understand what you are saying about different people liking different books. I won't read A Clockwork Orange because I tried watching the movie and couldn't even get through it, all the while thinking, "this is classic literature?"... I understand that particular book a little better now and though I don't think I would personally ever like to read it at least I can have some respect for it. There are some books on the list that I can't even respect. Some of that has been taken care of because those books have been removed. I just get tired of looking for something to listen to on CD and constantly trying a book from the list at the library and finding that I could have spent my time better listening to something else.

Dianna, maybe you need to think about what you are looking for in a list. Are you looking to read "true classics" (whatever that might mean to you), or "modern classics" (same), or to explore international lit? Maybe this isn't the list for you. Maybe working off of the Penguin Classics published list, or a similar list of modern classics, or reading along with a goodreads group that focuses on international lit is more up your alley. I have friends who focus on Harold Bloom's Western Canon list, but personally I have less than no interest in that list because all of the ancient stuff just isn't for me.

I think the lists are guides for those who want to read classics. I don't have to like them or even agree with those who chose them but it's a choice that I have. I did read Lucy Gault and liked it. Because of that read I have earmarked other work by William Trevor as books to examine and read if I choose. The same is true with award winners. I find myself wondering why some of them were even nominated but I can still choose whether or not to read them or if I do how much or how little I like them.

I love Harold Bloom! Thanks for the input.

Perhaps it's just me, but I'm pretty positive about all the books I've read so far (155) and I chose them at random too. All of them offer something fresh to me...Dickens is prob the one with most books which is lucky as I happen to be mad on Dickens! The only one I have given up on was Les Miserables.... all that misery, couldn't cope...

I love Dickens too! My problem is mostly with the newer books and I guess many of them have been removed.

Hahahaha oh dear. I'm no fan of Dickens and think the list could have done with less, but am very glad there are atleast two Umberto Eco books there and six Jane Austens. Guess everyone has their favs XD

I'd be very surprised if there was anyone who can say they've loved every book they've read off the list, unless they are specifically picking books based on authors/genres they already enjoy. I know a lot of people like picking random books like the ones picked for the monthly book club and by doing that you are going to come across some duds (even ones that other people adore). But to be honest, that's the way with books in general, and for all the duds I've read, I've also been introduced to a lot of authors/works that I never would have thought to read.

Yes! And in general the books on the list are worth reading even if they are not directly your usual taste. I use the list often enough to pick my next book :)

Don't you think though, if you take ALL editions of Boxall it amounts to 1300 books, which gives you plenty of leeway if there is the odd one or two you don't like?! I don't think of that as cheating myself, I think of it as being creative, after all with the best will in the world you'll never like them all!

Hey, ho. Glad to see this topic has been broached already.

From the amount of pushback on the original post- that there are a couple of turkeys on this grand 1306 "lifetime list," I think it needs saying more often, as in, "how many of these books have you NOT read?," or what's ripe for picking?

The fact that Ian McEwan started out with ten books on the list basically tells me all I need to know.

"The Temple of My Familiar" and "Possessing the Secret of Joy"- as far as I'm concerned, this is the exact same book.

"Fear of Flying," "The Godfather," "Myra Breckenridge," "Portnoy's Complaint." "2001: a Space Odyssey."?

Your "boomer-centrism" is showing.

I would like to hear other people's examples of book they won't read, or can't believe made the list.

There's been a couple I don't think belong there, but I don't know where to access the most current list. Some of the books I might lambast might already have been removed.

But...I think it's really hard to evaluate any books that were written in the last few years and determine that they are 'must-read-before-you-die' books. I see a lot of stuff from 2001 and upwards that have been recently acclaimed, or popular, but I wonder how many of those books will still be remembered 50 years from now. I keep thinking of John Cowper Powys' list of 100 best (which is more like 2-300) from 1916:

http://www.fullbooks.com/One-Hundred-...

Some of his classics have stood the test of time, but as the date approached 1916, there are a lot names that start to get obscure. Similarly, I wonder about names like Jennifer Egan and Junot Diaz and others--a lot of quality books from the early years of the 20th century got wiped out by the trends that came after WWI, WW2 and the 1960s. I wonder what trends from 2020 and beyond will make our current crop of authors obsolete.

While a lot of the contemporary books that made the list may be worthwhile, I doubt any of them can be evaluated as 'must-read'--except perhaps Austerlitz. If it's not must-read, then it's highly recommendable.

Thank you Bryan.

Christopher wrote: "Hey, ho. Glad to see this topic has been broached already.

From the amount of pushback on the original post- that there are a couple of turkeys on this grand 1306 "lifetime list," I think it needs..."

How anything written by that insane, pervert Marquis d'Sade would be listed as a "must read" baffles me. Pardon me while I puke!

Christopher wrote: ”How anything written by that insane, pervert Marquis d'Sade would be listed as a "must read" baffles me. Pardon me while I puke!”

Because most novels don’t inspire a subculture (or admitted lifestyle for some) that remains long after its publication. Or spark the celebrity of lesser books like The 50 Shades of Gray that become literary and financial blockbusters. While many adore Austen they aren’t rushing out to purchase corsets or taking lessons on English country dance.

In short, vice sells. It’s improbable that DeSade was the lone person with these behaviors. But he was brazen enough to put them in print. Even the Hebrew bible mentions sexual practices that fall outside of the norm. Baseness has always existed.

For the record, that was Tim answering me, who said "pardon me while I puke."

When I first became curious about the Boxall list, number one, I was glad to see all six Jane Austens on the list, but when I saw that Camilla had made it too, I thought, not such an honor.

I was under the impression that Camilla was 900 pp. long, and written by someone who had moved to France and basically forgotten English the way she is spoke.

But, I was set back by seeing how many GR reviews there were by people who had obviously managed to read the whole thing without too much difficulty, so I thought, well some people just read more than I do, and the list is for them.

The other thing I will say, is that I looked up the library copy of the first edition: 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die, and I must say it is a very attractive book. Lots of interesting author photos and retro dust jackets, title pages with woodcuts, etc.

As for Marqus ds Sade, I once read selections of his in a cheap paperback, and decided the amount I had read was enough.

Although I do think that's another bias of this list- cheaply 'transgressive' (might as well call it Sadistic) stuff- although I couldn't find specific examples of the stuff I mean.

"Them" (or "them") by Joyce Carol Oates. Just reading a synopsis once depressed me for three days.

Christopher wrote: “When I first became curious about the Boxall list, number one, I was glad to see all six Jane Austens on the list"

There are many who differ with your delight on their inclusion. Austen is an acquired taste which resonates with those who enjoy reading about wealth and social classes. Although I’m immensely fond of these subjects I realize they aren’t the bees knees for most.

I don’t understand why the inclusion of longer titles is problematic. The majority of Dicken’s items significantly exceed the average length of today’s books. Many of the selections were created during an era where reading was an important pasttime and distractions were less extensive than today. Being well-read was a social stamp and indictive of good breeding.

Boxall produced a list with great options for those desiring to increase their literary prowess. As with all compilations of this nature, there will be subjective hits and misses. Perhaps the latter are best avoided if they aren’t your cup of tea.