How Many Nat'l Book Award Winners Have You Read?

Only read four of them.

I agree with you about two things: The Corrections by Jonathan Franzen wasn't a very good book, and The National Book Awards are bull. Well, you didn't exactly say the latter, but it's true.

That said, there are a few books in the list that I intend to read, but that's just coincidence.

I've read 10 and "The World According to Garp" and "Rabbit is Rich" are two that would be in my Top 10 and "Augie March" and "Invisible Man" would be at least in the top 20.

I have read Sophie's Choice, and it is among my favorite books. Sooo tragic and heartbreaking, but I could not stop reading it.
Shipping News, very good book. Tree of Smoke, very good book.

Cold Mountain, Charming Billy, All the Pretty Horses, pretty good.

Color Purple? Not bad.

the list tends towards being literary, but that's okay, it's not extreme, the books are not unreadable after all. Actually, the only one I see as a mistake is probably the Louis L'Amour book. He was prolific, but not that good.

so I have only read 7. not too bad, could be better.

Well, I read a lot by most standards, but, while I could have forgotten something, I think I've only read one on this list (The World According to Garp, which I would say was good but flawed). I've read quite a few other books by authors represented on the list (Philip Roth, for example), and still others sit on my shelves waiting to be read (like The Invisible Man, All the Pretty Horses and The Corrections). By the way, I loved The Twenty-Seventh City by Franzen, which happens to take place in St. Louis, where I live. The story occurred right in the time period when I first moved here.

I can't stand Updike (except for his nonfiction in the New Yorker; his fictional characters just get on my nerves), but Malamud, Walker Percy, Bellow, Singer, Wilder, and Cheever are all great, and Oates and Sontag are outstanding. Doctorow makes my skin crawl.

Having read the reviews, I'd venture to guess that you missed the point of Waiting- I'd be interested in your view of Samuel Becket.

However, there is no particular reason why you should or shouldn't like any given book: it's personal. Nevertheless, "liking" a book is often irrelevant to the serious reader, as Francine Prose explains so eloquently in Reading Like a Writer: A Guide for People Who Love Books and for Those Who Want to Write Them (link to the book by Prose, I hope... maybe a link will show up here).

So what is the upshot? Do you prefer different "literary" books, or do you prefer other types of books altogether? There is no wrong answer, your taste is yours and doesn't need to be defended. By the same token, I would stick up for the right of the National Book Award committees to pick what they liked. If we all liked the same things, life would be pretty boring.

it's true James, variety is the spice of life.

Invisible man is a very well written novel too. I missed that one, first look.

I've read ten and find only three others on the list that I want to read. Not an impressive list! Try Time's "All Time 100 novels" (Google).

I actually didn't see Garp on there -- that's six for me, then. But I still wouldn't put any in the top -- though I sort of feel guilty not embracing the iconic Ellison title. It may be one of the most important books I've read, but not quite a favorite.

And per James' comment -- if "liking" a book was irrelevant to the serious reader, than I'd be happy to demote myself to "casual" status. However, I think "appreciation" can be its own element of consuming fiction -- to like and to appreciate something do not have to (although they may) coincide. I'd be concerned with taking Prose's remarks out of context -- "liking" a book is not as important when you're studying the material for its literary technique and quality. In this context, it's more lecture than leisure. But you can't deny that one's emotional reaction to fiction is important -- after all, if you really appreciated an author's use of language, but hated what they had to say with it, would you want to learn from and emulate that writer? "Liking" fiction is not some commoner's approach to literature -- it's an unassailable right as a reader, not to mention the goal of many writers.

Also: I'd read the criticism of Waiting in advance of my own reading, and I think they exaggerated the point of the novel. There's no tangible political allegory (except to passively say "Totalitarianism is bad"), and the "love story" told here is one of a man who grows tired of his boring old wife and tries to get with a younger chick. Then, when that doesn't work for some unexciting reason or another, he begrudgingly retreats back to his boring old wife, who for two decades has raised his children and run the family farm in his absence. Oh, the joys of marriage!

Good call Leo -- here's the link to Time's top 100. For further reading, here's a list of the best 25 novels published in the last 25 years, according to the New York Times (keep in mind this was done a few years ago).

Chris, I found a better list. Google "The Modern Library Top 11."

Chris, I like and dislike books, too. I admit it. "Like" just doesn't seem very deep compared to the palettes, shapes and temperatures of emotion and intellectual reaction that the National Book Award committees (probably) called upon to make their various decisions.

Agreed. In the context of sycophantic award-giving, how much one "likes" a book is probably marginalized.

I only read 4 myself. I'm too busy reading other fiction I guess. LOL