Although
I've always been a keen reader, I appreciate not everyone is like me.
As a kid my parents tried to encourage me to read the classics and
repeatedly suggested I try Paul Gallico's novella, The
Snow Goose –
a book I've still never made it through (as someone who seriously
dislikes snow, I'm blaming the inclusion of the word in the title for
its lack of appeal).
There
are so many books released every year and a huge back catalogue of
literary greats, making it virtually impossible to read all the
so-called “classics”, keep up with my favourite authors and check
out any new talent. I generally punish myself by reading weighty
books I “should” and then treat myself afterwards by tucking into
a novel whose blurb genuinely excites me. More often than not, I end
up enjoying the more hard-going scholarly fiction just as much as the
more contemporary works but every now and again, I battle through a
book that has little or no appeal. Casting my memory back over the 33
years I've been an avid reader, I can only name two books that have
defeated me and remain unfinished - Dickens' Tale
Of Two Cities
and Benjamin Disraeli's Sybil.
I'd like to think that as an A-level student, I was perhaps too young
to understand either and stubbornly intend on reading both books in
their entirety one day.
Since
first starting teaching over a decade ago, I've come across many
students who hate reading lessons and can't seem to engage with works
of fiction. Even during independent reading sessions when pupils are
allowed to bring in their own material or choose from school library
stock, many struggle to find a book that doesn't “bore” them.
Having regularly noted this rather depressing trend, I'm of the
belief that any time spent reading should be encouraged, however
non-literary the material (magazines, newspapers, websites...).
A spokeswoman for the website bookmarkyourlibrary.org.uk, seemed to
echo my belief in a recent Metro “story” but I
was pretty disgusted by the results of the survey summarised
in the article.
After trawling through literary forums and websites, researchers put
together a list of 100 “essential” books from their findings.
Some of the usual suspects make up the list (Tolkien's The
Hobbit,
Orwell's 1984,
Dickens' Great
Expectations,
Stoker's Dracula,
Alcott's Little
Women...)
and there are also some more contemporary entries that truly deserve
their inclusion (Yann Martel's Life
of Pi,
Audrey Niffenegger's Time
Traveller's Wife,
Alice Sebold's Lovely
Bones...).
Alongside the worthy, are some frankly shocking titles, including
Tulisa
Contostavlos' Honest:
My Story So Far,
Dan Brown's
The Da Vinci Code,
Piers Morgan's The
Inside and
Sophie
Kinsella's Confessions
of a Shopaholic.
Undoubtedly
pre-empting a backlash, a representative of bookmarkyourlibrary
commented on the results; Elisabeth Robinson said: “No doubt
literary aficionados will object to the likes of titles by Katie
Price and Russell Brand appearing in the list. But our view is that
as long as people are picking up books and reading that has to be a
positive thing.” As previously stated, I of course agree with this
sentiment but what angers me about the list is the way it has been
marketed as “essential”. Definitions of “essential” include
“absolutely
necessary” and “extremely important” - certainly not words I'd
ever use to describe Fifty
Shades of Grey
and Jamie's
Fifteen Minute Meals!
In
my absence over the next week and a half, I'll leave you with the
link to this “essential” list to peruse:
