The Guardian's 100 greatest novels of all time. Let's see. 3, 4, 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 31, 38, 48, 49, 52, 53, 59, 63, 66, 73, all read cover to cover. That's 16 out of 100. Of course, I've read bits and pieces of many of the others, and may have even completed some of those -- but who can remember? My thought has always been that too much of this was read at way too young an age. A 16 year old shouldn't be spending his time reading Moby Dick -- he should be out living life, as Herman Melville was before he began writing his novels. Too few young men have the opportunity to do such a thing today. A shame and a tragedy, both for the young and for literature.
The list I would enjoy putting together is the list of the 100 greatest plays of all time. Somehow the play has always captured my imagination in a way the novel never has -- for example, I would much prefer to have written a great play than a great novel. I'm not sure why.
I don't read much fiction anymore (who has the time?) But I'd like to think that I'd be right to say that the Guardian list could do better by including more William Faulkner -- though perhaps the idea was simply to include only one title per author. I really do need at some point to go back and dip into some of the old stuff I've read ages ago, and take a look to see what I'm able to see now, with grown-up eyes and more education than you can shake a stick at. As a logic teacher I should no doubt begin with Alice's Adventures In Wonderland ...
Posted by Greg Ransom | TrackBack