Although it was not easy doing so, I recently decided to abandon my list of 100 favorite books for a few reasons:
1.) My favorites keep shifting as my reading discernment deepens.
2.) Like many of you, a favorite from a different stage of life - especially those cherished when we were young - can sometimes lose its luster on a re-read.
3.) There are simply too many great books. Limiting my list to 100 has outlived its usefulness.
Even casual readers of this blog might appreciate the trauma induced for this semi-obsessive list-maker via this abandonment. Although I could have avoided that trauma by expanding my list to more than 100, after finishing Jonathan Franzen's towering, most recent novel - Crossroads (2021) - I instead settled on a strategy that seems more sustainable, given the likely number of reading years remaining for me. My list of 100 favorite books has now been officially superseded by 100 favorite authors, with Franzen occupying slot #27. BTW, this list - like the one it is superseding - is not hierarchal.
Why is this strategy more sustainable? Because finding seventy-three more authors worthy of my list before I run out of time is unlikely. Why not abandon the list without replacing it? Next question. How does an author ascend to these lofty heights? There must have been at least one string of three consecutive knock-me-to-the-ground books I've read - novels or non-fiction (though not necessarily read chronologically by publication date) - before that author can climb into my top 100. Directly below is a blog post from 2016 marking Franzen's sophomore entry in that trifecta. His first entry was for The Corrections, which kicked my ass upon its release in 2001, a decade before I began blogging. My list of the twenty-six authors preceding Franzen? Available on request. But I'd prefer instead if you would share with others which authors are on your list, no matter its size. I'm always on the lookout. If you do share, please include at least one title by any author you name. Thanks.
Why not "100 favorite books for my 70s" "100 favorite books for my 80s" etc. ?
ReplyDeleteObsessive list maker that I am, I first considered using this idea - i.e., 100 books from my 20s and every decade after - but then quickly got bogged down and settled on 100 authors instead. Like I said, a more sustainable idea. Given my list making propensities, isn't it interesting how the word sustainable includes the shorter but wholly apt word "sane"? Thanks for the comment.
DeleteI like this idea and would appreciate your list. So many books, so little time...I know it is a cliche but becomes truer as we grow older.
ReplyDeleteInes; Thanks for the comment. I've got my list handy (surprise!) and will share it with you under separate cover (e-mail with attachment). But first, how about giving me one from your list and at least one title from that author?
DeleteGood afternoon, Pat. I have to agree with the comments made by both krowebar and Ines. And to add to that ... The more you post of good books that you've read, and offer your recommendation, the more my list has grown. But, it's all good and I have been able to read more lately than I had been able to in years past and I thank you for your part in that. Hmmm .. a 'Pat's Favorites' list ? LOL
ReplyDeleteBe well,
Bob
Bob; Any small part I've played in prompting you to read more is gratifying; thanks for telling me this is so. As for that growing list, I apologize for adding to that but as long as you continue reading my blog I'm afraid that trend may continue unabated. BTW, I love the "Pat's Favorites" concept, egotist that I am.
Delete