May. 20th, 2003 04:48 pm
The Big Read (Rant Warning)
Many people have the list of the top 100 books from the BBC's Big Read competition posted on their LJs, with which ones they have read. Cool. I've read 46 of them, I think.
But some people are getting confused about what this list is. The BBC's Big Read is to find the Nation's best-loved books. Not The Greatest Novels Of All Time (TM) (All Rights Reserved). Not the best books of all time. But the Nation's best-loved books.
Based on that criteria, is it surprising that many of the books are children's books? For too long, children's books have been denigrated by the publishing world, apparently unaware that it requires as much skill to express complex ideas in a simple and direct way as it does to build vast metaphors and intricate plots.
The advantage children's novels have, in a race for "best-loved" books, is that, by necessity, they speak directly and communicate their meaning, sentiment and story without being encumbered by an overly elaborate and un-involving form.
I must confess that it disappoints me that many educated people lay in to this list as "containing drivel" or "not being the Greatest books". An elementary knowledge of research methods suggests that before criticising something...go to the primary source. It's here.
Rant ends.
But some people are getting confused about what this list is. The BBC's Big Read is to find the Nation's best-loved books. Not The Greatest Novels Of All Time (TM) (All Rights Reserved). Not the best books of all time. But the Nation's best-loved books.
Based on that criteria, is it surprising that many of the books are children's books? For too long, children's books have been denigrated by the publishing world, apparently unaware that it requires as much skill to express complex ideas in a simple and direct way as it does to build vast metaphors and intricate plots.
The advantage children's novels have, in a race for "best-loved" books, is that, by necessity, they speak directly and communicate their meaning, sentiment and story without being encumbered by an overly elaborate and un-involving form.
I must confess that it disappoints me that many educated people lay in to this list as "containing drivel" or "not being the Greatest books". An elementary knowledge of research methods suggests that before criticising something...go to the primary source. It's here.
Rant ends.
no subject
I posted approximately the same info at almost the same time - if you don't get them I might!
no subject
Midnight's Children was only a red spot, though.
[I'm really hoping every infant school had the same grading system, or no-one will know what the dooz I'm on about.]
no subject
Re:
Hope that clears it up.
no subject
(I'm still surprised that Forster's not on there, though. Come to think of it, there's no Sayers either - Strong Poison would be 2nd on my list.)
no subject
I must admit, that it took several hours before I found someone that cited the original source. Most people were just calling it the "100 books meme" or something. It's hardly surprising that people were slating the list when no-one was giving any idea as to it's source.
Once you know where it comes from and what it's a list of, it makes a lot more sense. I wonder just what fraction of the Nation actually took part in the poll.