I consider myself an avid reader. I try to read classics as well as the critically-acclaimed best-sellers of the day. I like good historical fiction once in a while, as well as graphic novels (Maus, anyone?). I also love revisiting my favorites, like To Kill a Mockingbird and Wuthering Heights. There are some weeks where I'll breeze through ten books, back-to-back, with barely a break in between. And then there are periods like now, where I am one hundred percent addicted to playing Dr. Mario on Super Nintendo (Mike calls it "Super Mario Pill," which amuses me to no end).
K-10 sent me a link from a 2005 issue of Time, listing their All-time 100 Novels. And... I am infinitely ashamed to admit that I have only read nine. Nine! Of the one hundred, I've read:
Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret
Atonement
The Catcher in the Rye
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
Lord of the Flies
The Lord of the Rings
Never Let Me Go
Slaughterhouse-Five
To Kill a Mockingbird
I also think that I've read To the Lighthouse, but I can't remember. And so I don't think that it counts.
In my defense, I do mean well. These titles are on my bookshelf, waiting to be read:
The Big Sleep
The Blind Assassin
Catch-22
The Corrections
The Grapes of Wrath
The Great Gatsby
Invisible Man
1984
On the Road
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
I also know that TIME's list is not the be-all, end-all of lists. I know that, above all, my preferences are what remain important.
11 comments:
I've tried to start The Blind Assassin a couple of times now but haven't been able to get into it. Maybe 2009 will be the year...I've had it since 2004!
LOVE The Big Sleep. But then, I'm a mystery fan, so I can't really evaluate it fairly.
You should definitely read Watchmen (http://www.time.com/time/2005/100books/0,24459,watchmen,00.html) before the movie comes out. It's on Time's top 100, so obviously it's pretty good, but it's also on my top 100, so what else do you need?
1984 radically changed the way I looked at things. Maybe not in a good way.
If you ever read Snow Crash (http://www.time.com/time/2005/100books/0,24459,snow_crash,00.html), let me know because I've got a question.
Also, I read 10, so boo-ya.
Perhaps you should ask Time to amend the list to include Twilight, Harry Potter, and Little House. Then that list would be your biatch.
lauren - I've had it since 2004, at least. Same with The Corrections. I've really got to get on those.
jlr - I think that might be my next book...
gabe - I will try both. Because I will not live in a world where you've read more than me.
k-10 - You can suck it, because you haven't even finished the Harry Potter series. You are not qualified to comment on my nerdiness.
But yeah, I need to branch out from the crap that was Twilight.
Time is retarded. I haven't even heard of half the books on their list. And seriously? No Austen, no Bronte, no Dickens? LAME!
And I can't believe you haven't read Gone With the Wind! It's one of my all-time favorites!
I would have to say ditto on what gabe said. About Watchmen. Before the movie.
Wow. What do I win for having read 20? Well, maybe just 19 if you want to count the books I actually finished. I'm curious as to what Time means by "best" novels. Tropic of Cancer by Miller is the one I didn't finish. I read enough to know it wasn't worth the time. I'll give you that for its time it was very progressive, but reading it now, it is just dirty and gross. It isn't a good book, it was just shocking for its time.
Gabe - ditto about 1984.
waayers - I know, I know. I have no idea what the criteria were.
mush - Another vote for Watchmen. Okay then.
lem - You do win! And yeah, I really need to read 1984.
The more I think about it, I am supremely disappointed with this list.
16. and i was an english major. so that's just sad.
can i say 17 if there's one where i just saw the movie? ;)
a - I was wondering how many you'd read. With that low number, I'd say that you should take the movie as one. It's sad anyway, but still. Take what you can get.
Post a Comment