December 3rd, 2006
And so the best book lists begin…
Donogh is looking for reviews of ‘Books of the Year’ from bloggers and two things occured to me:
1) Most of what I read this year wasn’t published this year, and
2) Most of what I managed to read from this year (work-related, not chosen by me) wouldn’t make a ‘Best of’ list, especially when considered alongside all the stuff I haven’t read that keeps getting recommended to me (Richard Ford’s The Lay of the Land, Richard Dawkin’s The God Delusion, Philip Roth’s Everyman).
If you’re stuck for inspiration, last weekend’s Guardian Review had some comprehensive recommendations by authors and critics and Belinda McKeon oversaw a similar round-up in yesterday’s Irish Times. Publisher’s Weekly weighed in early at the start of November with their Best Books of the Year; The New York Times 100 Notable Books of the Year throws up much of what you’d expect while yesterday’s UK Independent had a breakdown of recommendations by category. Today’s New York Times Sunday Book Review also has their 10 Best books.
Just as I’m about to get stuck in to MJ Hyland’s Carry Me Down, last night a good friend gave me a present of 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die. Like the film and album versions, it’s bloody addictive.
Update: Authorstore has made a great suggestion in the comments and is looking for an “Anti-Best of 2006 books” with three potential categories:
1) Great books read in 2006 that were not published in 2006
2) Awful books published in 2006 that no one should ever read even under pain of death
3) Books published in 2006 that you bought because you thought you had to but which in fact you have no intention of ever reading.
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:38 pm
[…] Original post by Sinead […]
December 3rd, 2006 at 4:08 pm
I’m talking about my books of the year on the radio tomorrow morning, and when I actually put the list together I realised that there were no new books this year that really left me awestruck (although there were lots that I really enjoyed). Alison Bechdel’s Fun Home was probably my all-round favourite.
December 3rd, 2006 at 6:10 pm
Ooo Stellanova, will you let me know when/what station? I’d love to hear your recommendations, as I feel like I’m playing catch-up this year. There were a few books I liked, but nothing so far that, as you say, left me “awestruck”. But then I’ve still got a pile to get through/buy.
I liked Edna O’Brien’s latest book, The Emigrant’s Farewell by Liam Browne and Ailbhe Keogan’s Molly and the Cyclops (published by Hag’s Head press).
December 4th, 2006 at 1:41 am
A Call for The Anti-Best of 2006 Book List
Even though I spend far too much time haunting bookstores and libraries, gobbling up lit journals, reviews, etc, I always have a hard time picking the best books of a given year. People ask me because they know I read…
December 6th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
my faves this year were Ariel Levy’s ‘Female Chauvinist Pigs’ and Simon Inges - ‘The Weight of Numbers’. And the Courtney Love diary of course.
December 6th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
UnaRocks - I also liked Ariel Levy’s book. While not exactly groundbreaking it was good to see all that information gathered together in one place. Have actually just started The Weight Of Numbers so looking forward to seeing how that works out.
Sinead did you read Black Swan Green by David Mitchell? It was one of my faves from this year, as was Human Traces by Sebastian Faulks (out in paperback in 2006 I think) but I agree with you - a lot of my very favourite books from 2006 were actually quite old!
Perhaps I should change my mind on those “1001…” list books? I am always gripped by a mutinous “who are you to bloody well tell me what to read/where to visit/what to look at” type rage when I see them!
December 7th, 2006 at 10:11 am
For what it’s worth The God Delusion is vastly overrated. Its good reviews seem to be by people who already had a bone to pick with religion and who are now just delighted to be armed with endless quotes to show the religious how they’re wrong.
The trouble with his book, I found, is that while his thesis is broadly right (that religions are potentially dangerous and profoundly irrational) he is regularly disingenuous with the facts. For example he says “Stalin was an atheist and Hitler probably wasn’t, but even if he was… the bottom line is very simple. Individual atheists may do evil things but they don’t do evil things in the name of atheism.” Yet Stalin wiped out Russia’s Orthodox priesthood, simply because they were Orthodox priests.
Then there’s “Why would anyone go to war for the sake of an absence of belief?” One justification for China invading Tibet was its priest-ridden backwardness under the Dalai Lama. The armies of the French Revolution didn’t exactly march across Europe with the blessing of the Pope either.
They’re just examples. His science is sound but as soon as he moves into the realms of history, in particular, he botches his arguments totally. There’s a section on suicide bombers & religion when it has, just this year, been ably proven that religious zealotry is not on its own sufficient to produce suicide bombers or even necessary.
All in all a handy book if you want to win an argument with a simpleton - but that’s about it!
December 12th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Not sure if The Sea by John Banville appeared this year or last year. I was underwhelmed by this novel. Too much searching for unusual words and sententious ‘literary’ sentences; blatantly studied effort to recreate the mood of a childhood past. Marcel Proust in A la Recherche did it better with his ponderous, rambling sentences somehow. Wonder what Banville’s Dublin-based period detective mystery is like?