The New York Times has their 100 Notable Books of 2005 up. Out of the entire list, I've read one book, Haruki Murakami's Kafka on the Shore, and I own a second, which is Salman Rushdie's Shalimar the Clown. I also saw Jared Diamond speak about his new book, but I didn't buy it; still, I suppose that counts as a third. So: out of the 100 Notable Books that the New York Times have noticed and deemed worthy, I have read one, own a second, and saw another author speak.
Excellent.
The New York Times and their notable lists are just useless. I'd hate to have my yearly reading represented as anything but a minority on it.
Excellent.
The New York Times and their notable lists are just useless. I'd hate to have my yearly reading represented as anything but a minority on it.
- Notes:Beck - The Golden Age
Page Summary
chrisbarnes : (no subject) [+1] - (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+13]
- ataxi : (no subject) [+4]
- bodhichitta0 : (no subject) [+0]
Comments
it's definately not long enough for the banville book.
we shall make some sort of post out of this, yes, and lay the blame at your feet.
...my god, i could make a fortune selling that.
i can delete it if you want, y'know.
(one day, livejournal will start sending me all my comments. sigh.)
that's true. i'm sure the books have a professional level to them. i just enjoy kicking round the new york times and such for fun. reading and taste are, as you say, subjective. it comes from people, after all, and you can never pick what people going to like/want/do.
The Quintessentially Sellable Book that didn't become that way by chance is still infuriating. Just like the Enjoyable Ad That Makes You Want To Buy The Product, or The Tear-Jerking Scene In The Miramax Oscar Contender.