The author of this post is giving advice on how to become well-read if you've never read a single piece of literature before. He asserts that if you read these hundred books on his list, you will magically be "well read," despite claiming that there is no quantifiable definition of the term "well read." So, yes. He contradicts himself directly. Which is only the first problem I have with this particular article. Here are all the quibbles I have with it, in no particular order:
- "We have a term for 'well-read' but absolutely no one can come close to defining it." Well. Guess what? He then "defines" well-read as a person who has read the hundred books on his list.
- This list is to help a person who has "never read any literature." The person who is capable of reading and who has never read any literature does not exist. Seriously. You may have read only children's literature, but he acknowledges by virtue of having several children's titles on the list the fact that children's literature is, in fact, literature. So, if you learned to read, you've read literature. This list is void because it applies to no one, ever.
- There are several "first" books without their sequels. Who reads Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone without reading the rest? And, for that matter, if the whole point of "being well-read" is to know what the heck people are talking about when they talk about books, I would think you'd need to read the entirety of the best-selling series of all time. Just a thought.
Game of Thrones, Dune, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Anne of Green Gables, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, The Hunger Games, and 50 Shades of Grey all make the list, without their respective sequels. Interestingly, The Hobbit, the prequel to the Lord of the Rings series makes the list, but Lord of the Rings itself (any of the books) is not on the list. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn similarly appears as a single title from the middle of a series.
(No. I'm not going to discuss 50 Shades being on the list. It's absurd.)
- Conversely, several "collections" are listed as "must-reads." The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, as well as collections from Emily Dickinson, Edgar Allen Poe, and Flannery O'Connor. I have a hard time taking a man seriously when he lists everything written by Emily Dickinson, but only cites two of Shakespeare's works. Speaking of which...
- Two Shakespeare plays makes you "well-read"? I mean, Hamlet is good and important, but could you imagine a person who had no idea what Macbeth was about? Or The Taming of the Shrew? Or Much Ado About Nothing? Henry V?
I'm not a major, uber Shakespeare fan or anything, and I'm not one that advocates "You must read the complete works of Shakespeare to be taken seriously." But to claim that reading Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet alone will give you a functional understanding of Shakespeare and his influence on literature, pop culture, language, OUR WORLD, is ridiculous.
- This list is really, really white, with a heavy emphasis on Russian, British, and American novelists. And that's really all I have to say about that.
- The Gospels and The Pentateuch are both listed. As a deeply religious person, I am highly offended by these being listed among ninety-eight titles of fiction. As a deeply religious person, I am highly offended by the idea that you can read the "greatest hits" of two major religious texts and call it a day, claiming you understand what more than two billion people on this planet claim as their lifeline. If you're a non-religious person, I'd think you might be offended by the claim that you must read religious texts in order to be taken seriously.
(I don't know if you're actually offended, it's just a guess.)
And this point really feeds into my last, which is really the gist of this entire rant.
- This list feels like it's less "How to Be Well-Read" and more "How to Fake Being Well-Read."
This list has some huge, gaping holes. Only the most popular works (not the best, just the best-selling) of some of the most popular authors throughout the history of the world are included. A single title from Austen, a single piece of work from any of the Brontes. A handful of fantasy, even less of science fiction, virtually no romance outside the major gothic/tragic/literary classics. A single horror title. Not a single vampire (love them or hate them, they are culturally significant across pretty much all of human history). No Hugo. No Dumas. One Dickens.
Which is a damn shame.
It could have been a list written to help people learn to love books, to discover what kind of books they love most. I am not against lists of "Must Read" books. On my bucket list is the BBC's 100 Greatest Novels of All Time, and I'm making good headway on it (35 down!). I understand the purpose, and I understand that these lists cannot be perfect. But this one?
It's just bad.
Since this makes me all ragey-faced, please, tell me what you think it means to be well-read and what books would be on your list. Or blog about it and drop me your link. I'd like to revisit this topic in a much more positive way.