Summary

The article critically examines the book '1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die,' questioning its comprehensiveness and the selection criteria used.

Abstract

'1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die' is critiqued as a clickbait-like title that doesn't deliver on its promise, as it omits significant works and authors. The article argues that the list, compiled by Peter Boxall, is subjective and fails to include a diverse range of literature, such as poetry, plays, and non-fiction. Despite improvements in recent editions, the list is still heavily skewed towards novels and novellas, particularly from the 20th century, and lacks enduring works from other periods. The article also points out that the list's appeal is compromised by its focus on popularity and marketability rather than a broad representation of literary excellence.

Opinions

The book's title is seen as misleading, as it suggests a comprehensive list of essential reading, yet it excludes many important authors and genres.
The article suggests that any canon, including Boxall's, is inherently limited and reflects the compiler's personal vision, potentially silencing dissenting voices.
There is a concern about the overrepresentation of 20th-century texts, which make up more than three-quarters of the list, questioning the balance and historical perspective of the selections.
The inclusion of multiple works by the same author, such as Margaret Atwood, is criticized for not leaving enough room for a wider variety of authors.
The article argues for a more accurate title that reflects the list's exclusive focus on prose works, rather than implying a broader inclusion of all types of books.
The aesthetic appeal of the book, with its clear layout and quality photos, is acknowledged, but the write-ups are inconsistent, ranging from insightful to superficial.
The task of condensing the importance of a book into 300 words is recognized as challenging, yet the article implies that some entries lack the depth and analysis expected from a reference work of this nature.

‘1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die’ is the book version of clickbait

You know you shouldn’t but you just can’t resist

You cannot die until you’ve finished every book that Peter Boxall, Professor of English Literature at the University of Sussex, thinks you should read.

Once you have achieved this feat, you won’t have read anything by Russell Hoban, Aimé Césaire, Penelope Fitzgerald, Nick Hornby, Mary Wollstonecraft, Rachel Carson or Edward Gibbon. You will be blissfully ignorant of all the poetry and plays ever written.

But you will have battled your way through four Dickens, five works by Thomas Mann and John Updike’s entire Rabbit series.

And most important of all you will be able to die in peace, safe from the tortures awaiting those who give up before the end of War and Peace.

So what will be the consequences for these literary shirkers? Boxall clears things up for us in his Preface to the second edition:

The contributors to this book are not interested in producing an exclusive list, a list that can achieve a transnational and transcultural consensus about which books we should read before we die.

Oh. So those big words on the cover were… a lie?

Don’t be a sheep

Evidently, no reference can serve as a compulsory reading list because we shouldn’t all be reading the same books.

Here’s Haruki Murakami telling it how it is in Norwegian Wood:

If you only read the books that everyone else is reading, you can only think what everyone else is thinking.

Any canon, however extensive, presents a particular vision of the word. Those dissenting voices that don’t neatly fit in with the compiler’s outlook can be conveniently ignored.

And, ironically, Boxall didn’t pick Norwegian Wood for his top 1001.

Dubious selections and glaring omissions

The list is, of course, subjective and a mere snapshot of the world’s literary production. Therefore entering into discussion about dubious selections and glaring omissions is entirely fruitless.

All the same, I have to say that I was disappointed to see that John Fowles’ The Collector had not been considered. Two of his other novels did appear, but I think The Collector is his best.

There was a place for Samuel Johnson, Uwe Johnson and B.S. Johnson, but The Orphan Master’s Son by Adam Johnson did not make the cut. This is one of my favourite contemporary novels and in my opinion, a far more enjoyable and worthwhile read than some of the other twenty-first century picks.

It is hard to tell which popular books now will still have enduring appeal in fifty years time, which makes any modern-day selections bolder.

Even so, I would question the overwhelming number of twentieth-century texts. It is not surprising that this should be the largest section, but should one century really hold more than three-quarters of the entries?

20th century showing off its many entries

A final grievance: there was no room for Prévost, nor Claire de Duras. Instead, Diderot scooped four entries and Rousseau three. It would be better for the list to offer a greater variety of voices, rather than go into more detail on just a few.

Getting better

The early editions of this reference were heavily criticized. Now in its fifth edition (2018), the variety is much improved.

The biggest change is the inclusion of more writers. For example, in the first edition, there were seven Margaret Atwood novels. Obviously her works are well worth their place in any list of must-read books. But to say that 0.7% of the best books ever written were by Atwood is pushing it a bit.

Now there are only three — Surfacing, The Handmaid’s Tale and Alias Grace — which clears some space for other great writer’s such as Atwood’s fellow Canadian Alice Munro. Inexplicably, she was excluded from the early editions.

What is a book?

There remains however one fundamental problem that frustrates me massively: the word ‘books’ in the title is misleading because the list is made up entirely of novels and novellas.

Nobody minds that it is a list of prose works. But why not say that? Why try to pass it off as something that it’s not?

It is wrong to advertise the list as must-read books when there is no poetry, theatre or religious texts. Changing the name to ‘1001 Works of Prose You Must Read Before You Die’ would solve the problem.

Clearly, the decision to go for books in the title was made by a marketing executive who thought it would help the work sell better. This may be the case, but the inaccurate heading undermines the list’s content.

Style over substance?

One of the best things about this book is its appearance. The layout is clear and attractive with excellent photos alongside the books and information.

The write-ups vary in quality. Some provide genuine insight into a book’s context, relevance and importance, whilst others seem to be a cross between a blurb and a Wikipedia entry.

Distilling the essence of a mighty work of fiction into a mere 300 words is no mean feat. But at times it feels like minimal effort has gone into the task.

Undoubtedly, compiling a list of the 1001 most important books ever written is a near-impossible job. This is a good attempt and the result is a wonderful reference of some of the greatest novels ever written.