Every year I set myself the goal of reading 52 books per year. I’ve only met that goal once since 2006 when I started keeping track of the books I read, but it does – sometimes – inspire me to read a book instead of a webpage. This year I read 46 books. For some reason, my reading seems to drop off in the fall.
I’ve been reading the Giller Prize shortlist every year since 2007 and, after another tedious slog through five books I never would have read otherwise, I’ve decided that I’m not putting myself through that again. I am giving up the Gillers.
My top five for 2011:
1. Winnie-the-Pooh by A.A. Milne
So pure and so overflowing with love that it creates the most beautiful little ache in your chest.
2. Animal Farm by George Orwell
Read it to feel instantly smarter and more well-rounded.
3. Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card
Instant and enjoyable sci-fi cred.
4. The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins
The last book of the year and not the first of the new year because I couldn’t put it down.
5. Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier
No tricks, just exquisite subtleties, an expertly unfolded masterpiece.
My bottom five for 2011:
1. The Sentimentalists by Johanna Skibsrud
How did this win the Giller Prize? The most disappointing of a disappointing lot.
2. Sarah’s Key by Tatiana de Rosnay
Sarah opens her lock a third of the way through the story, and that shuts the door on what’s worthwhile about this book.
3. Wicked by Gregory Maguire
Just goes to show that you can go to the most magical place on Earth (that’s Oz, not Disneyland) and still have an excruciatingly boring time.
4. Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
My sense of humour must be sorely lacking, because as I waded through the absurdist comedy looking for anything else in this book, it stopped being funny.
5. Bodily Harm by Margaret Atwood
No more of Atwood’s stagnant general fiction for me – give me her exhilarating speculative fiction such as The Penelopiad, which almost made my top five list.
Jeff
January 15, 2012 at 6:11 pm
52 books in a year? That reminds me of a guy I know whose goal it is to have sex 24 times in 24 hours. So far his closest is 18 times before he…uhh…peters out.
Since time seems to get more precious as we get older, I find myself watching fewer and fewer movies that are bad, but that’s because I tend to pay attention to certain critics or ratings before I decide to watch something. I just don’t have time to waste on a crappy film, even if it’s two hours compared to however long it takes you to read a book. I’m surprised you don’t have the same kind of filtering system. Or maybe your system is based on the wrong thing, due to the discrepancy of what book critics think compared to what you enjoy (or what is actually a “good” novel). This makes me think they should have a Rotten Tomatoes for books, and wonder what the criteria is for something to make the Giller shortlist.
Lisa
January 15, 2012 at 7:04 pm
I used to think that reading the Giller Prize shortlist was a good filtering system – presumably the best five Canadian books each year. I assumed that even if I didn’t necessarily enjoy a book on the shortlist, at least I was reading something with literary and cultural merit. I no longer think that is necessarily so with the Gillers.
The more I read (and record what I read, which is key), the more I discover that I tend to enjoy books that are older and have stood the test of time, which tends to be a very accurate barometer of their literary value, and/or books that are wildly popular. Most of the Giller shortlist finalists will be neither of those.
In books and movies, that which rises to the top over time, simply by virtue of still being remembered after so long, is what usually indicates a good piece of art. Books have the virtue of seeming less dated, though.
equivocalityJeff
January 20, 2012 at 1:42 pm
One of the ways I find good movies to watch is by looking at the list of films deemed “culturally significant” by the U.S. Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the National Film Registry, cause those films have definitely stood the test of time (and thank you U.S. Library of Congress for having excellent taste). If you’re close to 52 books a year though — when I probably don’t even watch half of that in movies per year — then I bet you’ve already exhausted similar “best of all time” lists for books.
I think reading everything on the Giller shortlist would probably be like watching all the movies nominated for a Best Picture Oscar that year…although those do tend to all be decent movies. So maybe there just aren’t enough good Canadian authors to provide a decent selection of literature? Or maybe there’s just too much political maneuvering when it comes to selecting nominees for the Scotiabank sponsored prize.
Alnoor Allidina
January 16, 2012 at 2:30 pm
I like the inclusion of a Bottom 5 this year, even if it includes a book that I’m quite fond of.
As for Giller winners and nominees, I agree with you in large part. I’ve started a few Giller winners / nominees over the years and have yet to finish them (Late Nights on Air is the latest). A couple of exceptions: Bloodletting and Other Miraculous Cures is really compelling (won in 2006), and I also enjoyed A Complicated Kindness (although I was trying to woo a Mennonite at the time so perhaps that had something to do with it.)
Lisa
January 17, 2012 at 5:22 pm
You’re so fond of Catch-22 that your avatar photo is you reading it! I expected to love Catch-22, and I don’t fully understand why I didn’t. The first chapter was both hilarious and poignant. But after awhile I just couldn’t take any more absurdity, and I couldn’t find anything else in it. I think the author and I disagreed on how much insanity I needed to be exposed to in order to get the message that war is insane. I like things nice and neat, I wouldn’t do well in war.
I remember Late Nights On Air as being pleasant, but not especially compelling. Bloodletting & Miraculous Cures was good, a quick read, but is it a book worthy of awards? I think it won because it was both pretty good and about a big Canadian event (SARS). I don’t think it has any lasting literary merit and our discussion about it today is probably the first time anybody has talked about it in five years. I think my expectations for the Gillers are misguided: I’m expecting literature, what I’m getting is culture.