Originally Posted by
JBI
Simply because of the way lists are made. What does a Joseph Conrad expert, or a Joyce expert have anything to do with such a list. They are only experts on their particular niche, and cannot possibly be able to create a solid list of "lifetime" worth dedication. You would need to examine the credentials of every single academic on the team, and then assess them all, sorting out which ones have backgrounds in contemporary, classical, or theoretical literature, and which ones have backgrounds in international, and comparative literature, and specifications on literary in translation, in addition to a knowledge of all available translations, and the availability of said translations, in order to begin to comprehend such a list as this. A Conrad expert, or an African American lit specialist has no real authority in assembling a list of 1001 books for a lifetime.
As I said before, I doubt the compiler of the list has actually read it, and instead is trying to push a marketing agenda of some sort. Lists such as these create a fallacy regarding scholarly thought, by over-emphasizing the importance of one critic (who very well may be a mediocre critic), and displaying his views as a general consensus amongst all critics, or many critics. For all you know, half the books on the list could only be recommended by one person, or could be recommended to the recommender of books, and not actually be read by the editorial staff.
Either way, it is 1001 books, and if we remove the classical texts, we are still left with an overabundance of contemporary fiction, which, even if the bulk are great reads, will definitely contain quite a few mediocre period pieces, which, by the time you get to them, will be forgotten, and out of print.
