Saturday, October 22, 2005

Debra's review of the Times 100 Best Novels List since 1923 has created some discussion in several blogs. I've read only 25 of the books, have not been interested in quite a few, and have never even heard of several. Even the ones I enjoyed surprise me by being on the "best" list. Are many of them on the list because they were innovative? Because they broke some kind of barrier? Are my reading tastes so vastly different from those critics who determine these lists? I suspect all of the above are true.

On this list , I've read 51. On this one I've read 47 (although on some anthologies, I may have skipped or skimmed a poem or two).

I see a few novels that made all 3 lists that I've never read, and I may look into that. Howevah, that will only happen in between the mystery, fantasy, and science fiction I now use for escape and entertainment.

On the Times list (from 1923 - present), the real question may be if anyone will read them 10, 20, 30 years down the road.

1 comment:

  1. I had read more on the other two lists you mention too, since they include some older-than-1923 stuff like Shakespeare and Jane Austen.

    Still hadn't read nearly all of them though and don't intend to!


Good to hear from you!