The dangers of reading 1001 in chronological order.

I attempted to start with Ovid's Metamorphoses. This is not a good way to get quick runs on the board. I have been going for over a year now, and all pretensions of being highbrow and intellekshual have gone out the window. I will finish it because I am stubborn, but I am finding it very heavy going. Perhaps I should have attempted reverse chronological order.

you really should have. It doesn't get much better for quite a while. Some of the longest books on the list are in the first 50 including 1001 Nights (3000 pages - I've just broken the 2000 page barrier!), Romance of the Three Kingdoms and Journey to the West. There are also real nightmares like Gargantua and Pantagruel.

Good luck!

Personally I think reading in strictly chronological order is an absolutely stupid way to read the list, especially if you're including the early versions of it. The 2006 list over sampled authors and if you don't like an author then you're in for a lot of painful reading when you have to force down one book after another published quite close together. Or even if you do like them, reading five of their books more or less at the same time is enough to make even a fan wish for a change.

And also as Auriyomi has said some of the longest books are at the start.

Mostly though I just think 'what is the point'? The list is meant to introduce the reader to great literature, it's not a yucky medicine that should be forced down the throat to improve yourself. Or some kind of self flagellation torture so that a reader can boast about how brainy they are. Some books are wrong for people at certain times, but they might enjoy them at another date. Why ruin great literature by reading it when you don't feel in the mood?

If you're choking down a book that you don't like then you probably won't remember it anyway. At least I never do!

well, the point would be that the list is a chronicle of the development of the novel as an art form. It must therefore be of some benefit to read the list chronologically. I'm not sure how you can label someone's approach as "absolutely stupid." Perhaps you didn't intend to come across so harshly.

Also, some of us read books we don't necessarily enjoy for themselves because we enjoy the longer term goal of having read more broadly than our desires would have us. I know for one that my opinions on Jane Austen would be worth far less had the list not introduced me to a great deal of literature that she borrowed from. I have a much greater appreciation for some novels because I know what came before them and led up to them even if I didn't necessarily regard the forerunners as great reads.

Interestingly, Jane is in fact one of those novelists who a chronological reader would have to face all at once. Maybe that's a good enough reason for that method to be branded absolutely stupid after all. ;-)

I would find it hard to read them in order, partially as some of the older volumes are harder to get and also as Arukiyomi said above, you would end up with runs of the same or similar writers.

Reverse would be interesting, even reading a few from the same period as you could get more of a grip of the world outside literature. I am also trying to diversify my reading and so do look at where the books are from.

To be honest, I tend to read what I can find - I source a lot of my books from charity shops and second hand stores. It does mean I do sometimes get a bundle of the same writer / period if someone has donated their bookshelves. Yes, there is satisfaction in crossing books off the list, so I do tend to persevere with the harder reads. Although I have also made a decision not to read more books by writers I have not enjoyed. I do give most writers a second shot, but as I have set my goal to read 1001 from the combined list, its possible to rule out some.

I don't know arukiyomi, I know how much you dislike Jane Austen... :-) According to your book reviews they've been agonizing to read. They are however exceedingly important books so far as that goes so that is a good enough reason to read them. But not to read them one after another which is what you would have had to do if you'd decided to read every single book on the list in chronological order and refused to allow yourself any deviation.

I can't view that as anything but, well, you know what word follows. I am sorry that you find it harsh and I accept your reproof, still, I can't think of any way to phrase it that accurately expresses how I feel. I know people do all sorts of things which others might consider insane (like deciding to read all the list instead of just some of it) but there often is a good reason for it so it does boil back down to the underlying reason behind reading the list in the first place. Seeing the development of the novel is certainly a good reason, but is it a good enough reason to torture yourself by refusing to deviate one iota?

As for the poor OP, if it's taken more than a year and still Ovid isn't hasn't been read then I do think it's time to shelve it and try another book. At that rate the 1001 (or 1300+) books to read before you die will, well you do the maths!

yeah... a year on Ovid is enough for even a diehard classics fan.

Incidentally, the spreadsheet tells you how many total pages there are on your chosen list so you can work out your daily page total to hit your target before you die. The OP might find that useful!

The book is split into centuries. I'd suggest reading one book from each of the centuries in rotation as that is likely to be much more fulfilling while still giving you a long-term perspective on the development of the novel.

There's a spreadsheet that can tell you when you're going to die? ;)

yep

http://arukiyomi.com/?page_id=4230

and an app on iTunes if you have a device designed in California

Hi! I'm one of the stupid people doing the original 1,001 in chronological order. The top reasons for this foolishness are as follows:

1) It's more adventurous to do it this way.
2) Plus, it's more challenging.
3) Also, it's more gimmicky
4) Therefore, it's more interesting.
5) Choosing what to read next is much easier. The choice is made for me. I don't contemplate what I'm in the mood for. The next book is simply served up.
6) It does get easier - size-wise, quality-wise, and book-obtaining-wise - as the books go along.
7) For authors multiply cited, the books are in order of publication, so I can chart the evolution of the writer, which is fun to do.
8) I posit that there is an elevated sense of accomplishment in doing it this hard way. Drake's "Started From the Bottom" comes to mind.
9) If I dislike a particular writer, then once I'm done with their last book listed, I'm truly done with them.
10) I did not count books I've already read as part of the tally, starting my number from scratch. Therefore, when I arrive at a book I've already read, I can instantly add 1 to my total, and I get more of a feeling that I'm actually getting somewhere.

>10 MartinBodek: I think it's amazing that you are doing it, bravo. I don't have the mental strength to do it that way...

I'm a superhero. My specific mutation is engaging in boring activities without clawing my face off. Case in point, I'm an ultramarathoner. One of the races I do is a 12-hour trek around a 1-mile loop. If I can do that, reading a boring book is nothing. I just zone out, and take it all in, which seems contradictory, but not for me. Professor X is proud of me.