|
| 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die | 
 enlarge | Creators: Peter Ackroyd, Peter Boxall
Publisher: Universe
Category: Book
List Price: $34.95
Buy New: $20.43
You Save: $14.52 (42%)
New (39) Used (16) from $12.95
Avg. Customer Rating:  49 reviews
Sales Rank: 2894
Media: Hardcover
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 960
Shipping Weight (lbs): 4.5
Dimensions (in): 8.5 x 6.4 x 2.4
ISBN: 0789313707
Dewey Decimal Number: 011.73
EAN: 9780789313706
ASIN: 0789313707
Publication Date: March 7, 2006
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Condition: BRAND NEW
|
| Customer Reviews:
 A Bibliophile's dream - or nightmare depending on how you view it... May 16, 2006
25 out of 33 found this review helpful
I did a very naughty thing today. In fact I'm still hiding the evidence from my husband. I bought a book. Not any old book. An expensive "do I really need another?" book, aptly named "1001 books you must read before you die" - Preface by Peter Ackroyd, and general editing by Peter Boxall. Advertised as a comprehensive reference source, chronicling the history of the novel and it's an absolute beauty.
For a smallish book it's thick, weighing the equivalent to two, or three 1lb bags of sugar. (I don't know, I'm useless at things like that - they either heavy or they're not!) Anyway, it's so weighty it's definitely not for reading in bed when you are sleepy, unless you want to knock yourself out for a week!
I have to admit I prefer the British version's cover, to this bland design. Not only does it look good with a cover designed (in primary colours) by David Pelham for A Clockwork Orange, written by Anthony Burgess (1972), it's smooth, shiny and smells good, too! Compared to that, the blue cover doesn't really come close. But it's what's in it that counts.
I plan to go through the book and read every single novel the two Peter's recommend, and share my findings on my website. Starting from Aesop's Fables, (4BCE), which I own and have never read - to Never Let Me Go, by Kazuo Ishiguro (2005) that I admit to avoiding when it first came out because it sounded too pepped up by those wealthy critics I love to hate.
It's going to cost a fortune if I can't these recommended books in any of my local libraries, however, I'm a bibliophilist and it's the price I'm (almost) willing to pay! Anyway, I'm a reviewer. It's my job!
From what I have read so far, this is worth every penny.I'm not bothered if I do or don't agree with the two Pete's findings - it will be fun testing each and every book out.
This book alone gives a bibliophile a sense of direction, a new chance to discover critically acclaimed masterpieces, cult classics, and an introduction to some contemporary fiction titles that may have passed you by.
Featuring over 600 full-colour images of books covers and frontispieces, posters and other contextual images, this is a dream come true for me. It also supplies you with quotes from authors and their novels, which makes this even more of delight to read, considering this is a reference book. I gave "1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die" five stars because just the thought of it gets me excited!
Incidentally, as I rushed out of the shop with my book clutched tightly to my chest, scanning the car park for my car (wishing I'd taken more notice where I parked), I couldn't help but wonder how ironic it would be if I died in a car crash on the way home, and they discovered this book "1001 books you must read before you die" in the boot of my car...
 Someone needs to write a list of lesser-known must-reads July 4, 2007
25 out of 32 found this review helpful
Wow! Most reviewers really liked this book. I'm a bit embarrassed to write that I was not only disappointed by it, but angry as well. Why angry? So many fine writers and wonderful books were left out, while entertaining but odd choices such as "The Buddha of Suburbia" were included. I read the latter, and if the editors had compiled a list of similar rather obscure but worthwhile books, it would belong here. But where is "Prince of Tides", then? Where are Louise Erdrich's and Michael Dorris' works? Why is "The Secret History" by Donna Tartt here(not a poorly written book, but not one I would have regretted missing). How about almost everything by Margaret Atwood??? And instead of the lovely "Animal Dreams" by Barbara Kingsolver, one editor chose her darkest and most unpleasant book(sorry, I made my own list of what I thought were poor choices and what I was surprised to see passed over, but I can't find the list now and can't remember the name of the Kingsolver book). One of my favorite books, "The Secret Book of Grazia Dei Rossi" by Jacqueline Park, would never be found in Ackroyd's tome(if you can call a list book a "tome"); neither would the historical fantasy series by Diana Gabaldon.
My primary argument with this item is that the 1001 books described are ones that many readers, especially conventionally educated ones, have read or heard of already. Why would I need to know that Virginia Woolf is considered an important writer, and that one SHOULD read one of her obscurely written, boring(I FIND THEM boring)works? I skipped reading my Woolf assignment in World Lit. in college. I love reading about Woolf, but I can't read HER stuff! But really, how many of the 1001 choices were of books that one would not otherwise come across and should really check out? Albeit, I'm a voracious reader and had heard of or read many of the 1001. My anger came from seeing so many unimaginative picks, things that Harold Bloom would choose,i.e., classics. There's nothing wrong with suggesting that classic lit. is worth reading, but I bought this book to find out what else, among trillions of works, is out there: authors and titles I might not otherwise have come across and that are great reads. I would love to tell you what I thought were some of the interesting choices in Ackroyd's book, but all I can remember are "Time's Arrow" by Martin Amis, something by Jeannette Winterson, and, I think, "The English Patient"(the focus of which, by the way, is almost the opposite of the story as re-done by the movie's screenwriters). Someday, perhaps, I'll find my own list of what was unbelievably left out and what I thought really should have not made it into this book. All I can say for now is that it appears that many people find this book helpful in some way, perhaps in the capsule descriptions of classic stories. I haven't read all those other reviews, and would not want to argue with them, anyway. But I'd like to see someone write "At Least 1001 Books You Might Never Come Across that You Should Check Out Before You Die". I can't edit or write this book because I couldn't choose just 1001. On the other hand, I could recommend(or tell you must-to-avoid)a bunch of books that I don't know if ANYONE else has ever read.
By the way, this was another book I returned to Amazon post-haste. I DO keep most books I buy, as Amazon could tell you. I am probably supporting most of the staff there.
some puzzling inclusions...and exclusions April 19, 2007
23 out of 26 found this review helpful
A very interesting exercise, but I have some comments, most of which have probably been brought up by others.
First, it might be more accurate to say that this is a list of 1001 extended prose works of fiction, not "books," as there are (with one curious exception, discussed below) no works originally written in verse--no Iliad, Odyssey, Aeneid or Paradise Lost. That's fine. Dr. Boxall is perfectly within his rights to set his list as he likes, but he should be more clear about it.
What is more inexplicable are the exceptions. Why is Ovid's Metamorphoses the only work written in verse on the list? Is it because some translations are rendered in prose? That seems inadequate as a reason. The entry says one reason is because it incorporates dialogue within a narrative. Well, so does Paradise Lost. I don't get it. What's the difference?
And what's Swift's Modest Proposal doing on a list of fictional works? It is a satirical essay, not imaginative narrative, at least not in the sense the other entries are.
Finally, almost everything on this list is an extended narrative except for a couple of short stories by Poe. Why? Surely, the author cannot mean to imply that Poe was the only master of the short story to deserve mention on this list--and with multiple entries at that! What about Chekov, or Maupassant, or Hawthorne. Surely, some (in fact, many) of their short stories are at least as good as "The Pit and the Pendulum." Yet, everyone else is limited to novels or novellas except Poe. Strange.
Finally, we get to quibbles about what is on the list and what is not. Of course, everyone has their favorites, and Dr. Boxall is entitled to his. Still, there are some very strange omissions, books (and authors) that by any consensus measure should be on a list of such breadth and self-declared comprehensiveness. Indeed, the advantage of having such a long list is that it gives the author room to include both the accepted canon and also his own personal favorites. But that canonical part has some mighty strange holes. Just for example, how can you possibly not include the Pickwick Papers by Dickens? I know Dickens is well represented already, but this is a landmark work by any measure, plus a lot more fun to read than many works that were included.
The list is skewed toward the 20th century, and I have no problem with that. This is obviously a list for the modern reader, so an emphasis on works that will tend to have more relavence to such a reader's life and experience is entirely appropriate. But that being said, I have to say that there are strange gaps in the 20th century selections. Just to start, where's Willa Cather? Cather is generally accepted as being on the next-to-short list of great 20th century American novelists, so surely one of her works (My Antonia, Death Comes for the Archbishop) could have squeezed in.
Other 20th-century omissions I found particularly puzzling: Deliverance (James Dickey), the Studs Lonigan trilogy (James Farrell), This Side of Paradise and The Last Tycoon (F. Scott Fitzgerald), Point Counter Point (Aldous Huxley), From Here to Eternity (James Jones), Darkness at Noon (Arthur Koestler), The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter (Carson McCullers), The Naked and the Dead (Norman Mailer), The Fixer (Bernard Malamud), Appointment in Samarra, (John O'Hara), Sophie's Choice (Wiliam Styron), The Magnificent Ambersons (Booth Tarkington), All the King's Men (Robert Penn Warren), The Bridge of San Luis Rey (Thornton Wilder), and Look Homeward Angel and You Can't Go Home Again (Thomas Wolfe). Is Dr. Boxall really trying to say that Tarzan of the Apes, which he includes, should be read before all of these (don't get me wrong, I like Tarzan, but c'mon...).
Though they form only a small part of the overall list, I find the early entries forced, as if Dr. Boxall felt he had to have some pre-18th century prose works in here, even though extended prose fiction was not this era's strength, to say the least (with the exception of Don Quixote, the one pre-18th century novel that definitely belongs here). It seems to me that you can live a very full intellectual life without ever having read Euphues or Aithiopika or The Unfortunate Traveller. They are interesting from an academic standpoint as early experiments in prose fiction, but surely no more than that for the modern reader, unless he/she is a specialist. To appreciate pre-18th century literature, you're much better off going to the drama and verse works.
Ultimately, this would be a much more useful list if it incorporated more modern masterpieces while limiting the earlier stuff.
 Not very Interesting or enlightening February 21, 2007
21 out of 26 found this review helpful
This isn't terribly interesting as a book and has a number of serious omissions. It seems as if many of the titles were culled from college level literature courses but the absence of some seriously great literature is noticable. First there is nothing by Paer Lagerkvist who won the nobel prize for literature, Beowulf is absent, so too is the Bible (which I think would be requisite reading simply for the sake of understanding 17th, 18th, 19th, and even early 20th century western literature), and nothing by Chaucer. Included are a number of short stories or essays that wouldn't seem to qualify as books by any reasonable definition - some by Poe and some by Swift. The Harry Potter books are absent. One might think because they appeal to younger readers but Salinger's Franny and Zoe makes the cut. Mysteriously four novels by Brett Ellis also make the cut. It is a perplexing hodgepodge of selections - many great books are indeed included, but also many great books (both well-known and not) are passed over for IMO some very middle of the road stuff. It ought to be titled not 1001 books you must read before you die but rather the first 1001 and one books the editors thought of in compiling a list of 1001 books. To the extent to which it gets people to consider fine literature however it might serve its purpose.
Actual title: "1001 Novels That Some Strangers Picked Out of a Hat" July 24, 2007
21 out of 23 found this review helpful
The title implies that many types of "books" will be chosen, not just works of fiction. When you consider the many forms of literature that have appeared as books, the willful omission of this in the title is deceptive marketing. No treatises, no plays, no essays, no philosophy, no history, no biography. If I am going to have a reading list of 1001 books that I must read, I'm not going to spend my time on novels picked by strangers who have an infatuation with justifiably obscure works.
Because, in an effort to appear knowledgeable and insightful, the authors and their cohorts have selected works from the more remote niches of literature and passed over works with greater import. When the author (or the publisher's marketing department) puts "BOOKS YOU MUST READ BEFORE YOU DIE" in the title, then the works had better well be literary touchstones.
But the selection process is so uneven and so vested with the reviewers' personal favorites that you will be only halfway enlightened when you finish. Is a reader's time really better spent -- and thus bringing the reader incrementally closer to a more contented death -- reading Douglas Adams' "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" over Leo Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina"? Both are in the book. Yet the arguments for Dirk's inclusion are slim, and the literary and cultural impacts nonexistent.
(And I don't need to go into much detail about whole genres that are absent or only given lip service. For a book that presents such lofty claims, it is not worthy of the expansive-sounding title.)
The only recommendation I have for this book is to use it as a springboard for your own list of novels to read. Better yet, go chat with your local librarian about your likes and interests. You will get a far more satisfying list of books to read AND you will improve your knowledge of key works of literature.
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
