Wow, that's making a massive assumption Petia. In actual fact, that book was compiled by Peter Boxall, but reviewed by over 70 contributors, all experts in their field.
I suspect that Mr Boxall has read far more widely than 1001 books - after all, he needed to select from a vast pool of existing literature. Ergo sum he has read far more than 1001 novels.
I'm assuming that he had the opposite problem: he had to work out what to leave out of the list and what to keep in. The list is, in point of fact, a vast survey of the novel from 4 BCE to 2005.
I think a far more interesting question is: what books would he have had to have cut to have included other books you believe should be in the list?
The problem you have there is that the task at hand is subjective. If we picked out 100 books, you might have missed 100 amazing books in the meantime.
Personally, I recommend that you read Crime and Punishment, Les Miserables, To Kill and Mockingbird and War and Peace.
Cannot bring myself to read any of Satre's novels - far too base, and even criminal. Neither can I bring myself to read American Psycho.
I own this book, and "The Dog's Mother" is not on the list. Neither is Pavlos Matessis. He did win the 2002 Giuseppe Acerbi Literary Prize for this novel, however.
It's 1001 books you must read before you die. Not 100,001 books you must read before you die. And the general editor, Peter Boxall, wrote that "the final list, including all the novels that one must read and excluding all the ones that it is safe to leave unread, could of course never be drawn up... [nevertheless] at the same time, the limits that the number upon me are cruel and narrow. One thousand and one is after all such a small number, given the extent of the subject matter."
Wow, that's making a massive assumption Petia. In actual fact, that book was compiled by Peter Boxall, but reviewed by over 70 contributors, all experts in their field.
I suspect that Mr Boxall has read far more widely than 1001 books - after all, he needed to select from a vast pool of existing literature. Ergo sum he has read far more than 1001 novels.
I'm assuming that he had the opposite problem: he had to work out what to leave out of the list and what to keep in. The list is, in point of fact, a vast survey of the novel from 4 BCE to 2005.
I think a far more interesting question is: what books would he have had to have cut to have included other books you believe should be in the list?
Cervantes is in the list.
The problem you have there is that the task at hand is subjective. If we picked out 100 books, you might have missed 100 amazing books in the meantime.
Personally, I recommend that you read Crime and Punishment, Les Miserables, To Kill and Mockingbird and War and Peace.
Cannot bring myself to read any of Satre's novels - far too base, and even criminal. Neither can I bring myself to read American Psycho.
Not true. It was originally published as Schindler's Ark.
I own this book, and "The Dog's Mother" is not on the list. Neither is Pavlos Matessis. He did win the 2002 Giuseppe Acerbi Literary Prize for this novel, however.
It's 1001 books you must read before you die. Not 100,001 books you must read before you die. And the general editor, Peter Boxall, wrote that "the final list, including all the novels that one must read and excluding all the ones that it is safe to leave unread, could of course never be drawn up... [nevertheless] at the same time, the limits that the number upon me are cruel and narrow. One thousand and one is after all such a small number, given the extent of the subject matter."