The BBC has compiled a Platinum Jubilee reading list, selecting one book for each year of the Queen’s reign, but it is more notable for the books it has left out than included. The Big Jubilee Read is intended to celebrate great books from across the Commonwealth, and includes many white British authors as well as Indian, African and African-Caribbean writers. Yet it doesn’t include Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings or James Bond. MailOnline has more.
Some of Britain’s greatest authors have been snubbed by the BBC as both J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings have been left out of the BBC’s list of books from the Queen’s 70-year reign.
The BBC’s Big Jubilee Read has been compiled following a five-month search that has involved librarians from towns and villages across the UK – along with readers in 54 countries.
It aims to offer 70 pieces of “brilliant, beautiful and thrilling writing” produced by authors from all over the Commonwealth over the last 70 years, 14 of whom are from the UK.
Yet two of Britain’s most prestigious novelists have been omitted from the list, the Times reports.
JK Rowling’s Harry Potter, almost certainly the U.K.’s largest literary export over the period, has been left out alongside J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings – beloved since its publication in 1954..
Both franchises were hugely popular globally, both in terms of the original books and subsequent films.
It comes as British megastar author Rowling, 56, has faced accusations of transphobia after she mocked an online article in June 2020 for using the phrase “people who menstruate” instead of “women”.
She later defended herself against the claims in a passionate essay but has been hounded online by some members of the trans community ever since.
An initial long list of 153 books had to be cut down by more than half to 70 – one for each year of the monarch’s reign.
Susheila Nasta, emeritus professor of modern literature at Queen Mary and Westfield University, said there was a “big discussion over about J.K. Rowling” before the list was completed.
She added: “She was on the long-list with Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone.
“A space was cleared for someone equally as good but whose work was not as well known. There were some very tricky decisions.”
But the list, to be published in full on Monday, does feature other books that have later been turned into popular television series or films.
Included are Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, John Le Carré’s Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Yann Martel’s Life of Pi.
The list hasn’t just omitted J.K. Rowling and J.R.R. Tolkien from the list. Also overlooked are any books by Evelyn Waugh, Graham Greene, V.S. Pritchett, Ian Fleming, Len Deighton, Ian McEwan, Julian Barnes, William Boyd, Kingsley Amis and Martin Amis, to name just a few.
Here is the list of the greatest books published by authors from across the Commonwealth published in the past 70 years, according to the BBC. I have to confess, the only I’ve read is Tinker, Tailer, Soldier, Spy. How about you?
1952-1961
The Palm-Wine Drinkard – Amos Tutuola (1952, Nigeria)
The Hills Were Joyful Together – Roger Mais (1953, Jamaica)
In the Castle of My Skin – George Lamming (1953, Barbados)
My Bones and My Flute – Edgar Mittelholzer (1955, Guyana)
The Lonely Londoners – Sam Selvon (1956, Trinidad and Tobago/England)
The Guide – R. K. Narayan (1958, India)
To Sir, With Love – E. R. Braithwaite (1959, Guyana)
One Moonlit Night – Caradog Prichard (1961, Wales)
A House for Mr Biswas – VS Naipaul (1961, Trinidad and Tobago/England)
Sunlight on a Broken Column – Attia Hosain (1961, India)
1962-1971
A Clockwork Orange – Anthony Burgess (1962, England)
The Interrogation – J.M.G. Le Clézio (1963, France/Mauritius)
The Girls of Slender Means – Muriel Spark (1963, Scotland)
Arrow of God – Chinua Achebe (1964, Nigeria)
Death of a Naturalist – Seamus Heaney (1966, Northern Ireland)
Wide Sargasso Sea – Jean Rhys (1966, Dominica/Wales)
A Grain of Wheat – Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o (1967, Kenya)
Picnic at Hanging Rock – Joan Lindsay (1967, Australia)
The Beautyful Ones Are Not Yet Born – Ayi Kwei Armah (1968, Ghana)
When Rain Clouds Gather – Bessie Head (1968, Botswana/South Africa)
1972-1981
The Nowhere Man – Kamala Markandaya (1972, India)
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy – John Le Carré (1974, England)
The Thorn Birds – Colleen McCullough (1977, Australia)
The Crow Eaters – Bapsi Sidhwa (1978, Pakistan)
The Sea, The Sea – Iris Murdoch (1978, England)
Who Do You think You Are? – Alice Munro (1978, Canada)
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy – Douglas Adams (1979, England)
Tsotsi – Athol Fugard (1980, South Africa)
Clear Light of Day – Anita Desai (1980, India)
Midnight’s Children – Salman Rushdie (1981, England/India)
1982-1991
Schindler’s Ark – Thomas Keneally (1982, Australia)
Beka Lamb – Zee Edgell (1982, Belize)
The Bone People – Keri Hulme (1984, New Zealand)
The Handmaid’s Tale – Margaret Atwood (1985, Canada)
Summer Lightning – Olive Senior (1986, Jamaica)
The Whale Rider – Witi Ihimaera (1987, New Zealand)
The Remains of the Day – Kazuo Ishiguro (1989, England)
Omeros – Derek Walcott (1990, Saint Lucia)
The Adoption Papers – Jackie Kay (1991, Scotland)
Cloudstreet – Tim Winton (1991, Australia)
1992-2001
The English Patient – Michael Ondaatje (1992, Canada/Sri Lanka)
The Stone Diaries – Carol Shields (1993, Canada)
Paradise – Abdulrazak Gurnah (1994, Tanzania/England)
A Fine Balance – Rohinton Mistry (1995, India/Canada)
Salt – Earl Lovelace (1996, Trinidad and Tobago)
The God of Small Things – Arundhati Roy (1997, India)
The Blue Bedspread – Raj Kamal Jha (1999, India)
Disgrace – J.M. Coetzee (1999, South Africa/Australia)
White Teeth – Zadie Smith (2000, England)
Life of Pi – Yann Martel (2001, Canada)
2002-2011
Small Island – Andrea Levy (2004, England)
The Secret River – Kate Grenville (2005, Australia)
The Book Thief – Markus Zusak (2005, Australia)
Half of a Yellow Sun – Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie (2006, Nigeria)
A Golden Age – Tahmima Anam (2007, Bangladesh)
The Boat – Nam Le (2008, Australia)
Wolf Hall – Hilary Mantel (2009, England)
The Book of Night Women – Marlon James (2009, Jamaica)
The Memory of Love – Aminatta Forna (2010, Sierra Leone/Scotland)
Chinaman – Shehan Karunatilaka (2010, Sri Lanka)
2012-2021
Our Lady of the Nile – Scholastique Mukasonga (2012, Rwanda)
The Luminaries – Eleanor Catton (2013, New Zealand)
Behold the Dreamers – Imbolo Mbue (2016, Cameroon)
The Bone Readers – Jacob Ross (2016, Grenada)
How We Disappeared – Jing-Jing Lee (2019, Singapore)
Girl, Woman, Other – Bernardine Evaristo (2019, England)
The Night Tiger – Yangsze Choo (2019, Malaysia)
Shuggie Bain – Douglas Stuart (2020, Scotland)
A Passage North – Anuk Arudpragasam (2021, Sri Lanka)
The Promise – Damon Galgut (2021, South Africa)
Stop Press: The Free Speech Union has launched a CrowdJustice fundraiser so an author can sue her publisher for sacking her after she inlcuded the hashtag #IStandWithJKRowling in her Twitter bio. You can donate here.
Stop Press 2: A former BBC journalist has written a long, thoughtful piece for Persuasion about why the Corporation’s diversity targets are incompatible with its commitment to impartial, public service broadcasting.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
To be fair, whilst JK Rowling’s cancellation due to her comments on transgender is outrageous, her books are, ahem, kind of demonic. So there’s that.
To be fair, JK Rowling managed to get Britain’s kids reading and enthusuastic about it. So maybe that alone warrants a space on the list, but as the BBC called the shots on this, why is anyone surprised at her exclusion?
Indeed. Personally, I do not consider Rowling as that skilled an author and it was a case of right place, right time for her. But as you say, she generated a lot of interest and got a whole heap of kids, and indeed adults, reading which is no bad thing and I certainly do not begrudge her her success. When I was a child Enid Blyton books were very much frowned upon by the establishment but they certainly were the start of what got me into the enjoyment of reading.
Just William, Enid Blyton and the Billabong series for me – in second-hand hardcovers from a Red Cross bookshop.
I remember being vastly impressed by how much they ate in Blyton’s books – everything seemed to be served with “lashings of cream”.
To be fairer, she managed to get them reading her books, but nothing else.
No, her books are most definitely not demonic, your claim is balderdash
Oh well then, that settles it. Who are you, God?
I’m surprised your author doesn’t feature on the list either.
Yes, Terry Pratchett is certainly worthy of an entry.
Rowling was pretty woke in every other way except when it comes to the trans issue. Live by the sword and all that.
Has she ever demanded censorship? No? Then she isn’t woke.
Live by the sword? She most certainly does not.
In fact, having gone above and beyond by reading them ALL to my kids in the early 2000s, I can confidently state that Rowling relies far too much on the almost unpronounceable adverbs “dully” and “shrilly”, and is NOT a great stylist. But the pages turn because the does know how to pace the narrative – not necessarily easy, to judge by the work of many much more ‘serious’ writers. And yes she got a lot of kids reading (and a lot of slightly sad adults, if the Piccadilly Line was anything to go by in those days).
I’ve read a few more from that list than Tobes, but no, most are unknown to me. If the aim is to include books that made a splash, then this list is daft – diversity being the only criterion. O tempera.
Her books are juvenile hack jobs – Malory Towers meets The Hobbit
I agree. Her books bear no comparison with the great children’s authors like Rudyard Kipling, E.Nesbit, and others. They have got children reading, but what a pity they aren’t good literature.
To be fair to the collators of the list, Harry Potter might well be an engaging read, but it isn’t outstanding literature. I suppose the problem with Bond is which one to choose (well, the best Bond movie might be Goldfinger, but the best book is probably the first — Casino Royale).
I’d suggest that most people would get something out of the majority of the books on the list (not that I’ve read all of them) — but very few will actually go to the trouble of actually reading them.
It was nice to see Rushdie on the list — his books are well written and engaging, even though he was cancelled for a while. Strange that they chose Midnight’s Children over The Satanic Verses…
Can’t offend the most politically organized group in the country, that’s why
Harry Potter is a bit of an embarrassment to read, as Rowling cannot write.
OK for young children maybe.
No, your post is embarrassingly rubbish
Tastes differ!
Not a question of taste. You were right the first time. Harry Potter is objectively utter crap.
This will just be back and forth. Some people enjoy her books while recognising her limited talents (sorry, I’m one); others see their enjoyment of her writing as proof that her talents are of a higher order. One group has an ability to be objectively analytical AND can enjoy her writing despite their dreadful arcane knowledge, while the other group just reads and enjoys, no objective analysis being brought to bear, for whatever reason. Neither approach is ‘wrong’, but you’ve got to be realistic…
Being rude to other contributors doesn’t add anything constructive to the discussion. If you disagree with a proposition, present your counter-arguments.
There weren’t any arguments presented in the first place to counter, just moronic sniping.
Yes, quite agree. Certain considerable positives about her contribution – but no, a very pedestrian writer.
Your jealousy is palpable
Address the issue, don’t insult the contributor. That sort of rudeness has no place here.
Your sort of pretentiousness has no place here.
A few years ago I read The Philosopher’s Stone, purely out of curiosity as to why there existed such mania about Rowling’s Potter series. I thought that it was middling juvenile fiction that anyone up to 10 years of age might enjoy.
Compare it, or any of the Potter books, to something like Richard Adams Watership Down, and the contrast is stark. Punch up, especially when writing for children; it’s why J.M. Barries’ novelization of Peter Pan is a masterpiece.
Read some of them. Can never undertand why ‘The Sea, The Sea’ by Iris Murdoch seems to be so highly rated – a long-winded, tedious book with a lead character who is a complete arsehole.
Ishiguro’s ‘Remains of the Day’ is good, but it’s not his best book- that would be the haunting ‘Never Let Me Go’.
Agreed re Murdoch; plots and characterisation tend to follow a formula (mostly producing unlikeable characters). A lot of pretentious stuff going on. Ultimately clever but boring.
Remains of the Day was a good choice. I loved Iris Murdoch’s novels when I was a teenager. Can’t read them now.
The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy was originally a very funny 1978 BBC radio comedy, novelised the following year, so, much as I loved the HHG series, I think there’s some conflict of interest in the BBC’s choice.
As for the 1952-1961 selection, I only know “To Sir With Love” – it’s ok, but hardly on a level with either “The Lord of the Rings” or “Lord of the Flies” though it’s obvious why the BBC chose it.
Ooh a down vote, presumably for having my own opinion.
There’s an uptick to compensate you for your MISTAKE, and reward you for your courage in venturing a literary opinion (a very dangerous sport).
Two down votes now, for saying what exactly? Come on you two down voters, have the courage and the confidence to state your objections. I doubt you can, either of you.
As a general rule, I think people are entitled to an anonymous down vote – for all sorts of reasons. But this is different: it’s venturing a literary opinion without putting one’s own head above the parapet.
I’ve given you another uptick for your challenge, and I’ll venture into the fray (inspired by your example).
As an Australian, I’m puzzled by the inclusion of Picnic at Hanging Rock (1967) and The Thorn Birds (1977). As far as the former is concerned, I thought the film was considerably better than the book; the latter was more effective as a doorstop than as a work of fiction.
My choice for the years in question wouldn’t have qualified for the list: One Hundred Years of Solitude in Gregory Rabassa’s magnificent translation.
It’s just occurred to me that I’m wimping it by going outside category. So I’m nominating for inclusion Patrick White’s Voss (1957).
I’d love to have nominated CS Lewis’ The Great Divorce”, but it’s too early, so I’ll nominate any of George MacDonald Fraser’s “Flashman” novels. Hugely enjoyable and historically very accurate.
Ah! Flashman!
Now there was a new comet lighting up the literary heavens.
But George McDonald Fraser, having been a real fighting soldier and fascist and patriotic enough to favour Brexit, was always going to get a big fat No!!! from Aljabeeba.
I’ve now got four down votes for daring to make a remark about being down voted for having an opinion. I guess something I said hit a nerve, but I thought my observation was pretty anodyne. I agree that down voters are entitled to be anonymous, but in this case they’re just being lazy.
Thanks for your upvote by the way.
Mate – there are people who find “Good morning” offensive.
I haven’t read the Flashman novels – time to begin.
I’ve learned to embrace the downvote. It’s a sign that you’re hitting a nerve. In fact, I feel a bit weird when I post something these days and don’t get a single downvote. It’s like, damn, I wasn’t making my point controversially enough. It’s not a punch in the face, or even a rude gesture, it’s just a downvote. This place is at its best when its sizzling, and you can’t have sizzle without a bit of heat. We’re all anonymous, so it’s not personal, just an opportunity to try ideas out in the marketplace. Hopefully someone will downvote this.
I’d have given you a downvote, just to please you, but I’ve been beaten to it. So have an upvote, instead.
Be warned- they feature a bloke who likes women who are real women.
Never worth bothering about down votes, in my view.
The inclusion of Picnic at Hanging Rock surprised me too. I read it many years ago and thought it mildly diverting.
The fact that Patrick White is not included amazed me. Riders in the Chariot, The Tree of Man, Voss, Eye of the Storm; and on!
If they couldn’t bring themselves to include White I would have been happy to have seen Bruce Dawe included.
Oh I dont know, HHGTG established some important principles.
Id prefer if we put all the al beeb employees on the B Ark, pronto, for instance.
Leaving out Lord of the Flies is an appalling error. William Golding won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1983. You’d think that would count for something. And what about Doris Lessing, winner in 2007? Instead they include potboilers like The Thorn Birds or To Sir with Love.
But they both ticked Aljabeeba’s beloved boxes 1) Women, and 2) Blacks being better than whites.
With one ‘English’ writer allowed for each decade, we have 4 women in the last 40 years, one of whom is white. The last time a white makes did anything apparently was Douglas Adams in 1979.
There is a very real bias against male writers in the UK/US in particular. There is a strong bias against white writers in the UK/US, there is a strong bias against heterosexual writes in the UK/US. If you are male, white and straight , even if you write brilliantly, to get a first novel published is next to impossible unless you are writing in very niche markets.
The industry is totally dominated by women who are ‘getting their own back’ on the decades they perceive the industry was dominated by white males.
Its very sad.
To not include William Boyd is sheer spiteful, he has been a world class author for decades.
No Robertson Davies, either; the best Canadian post-WW2 author (superior to Atwood, I believe). As much as I enjoy the HGTTG, Iain M Banks was a far better writer of sci-fi (and was also a superb writer of contemporary fiction) than Douglas Adams.
The BBC is a political campaigning organisation
If it is about literature what about JG Farrell? I don’t think there is any doubt Lord of the Rings in extraordinary thing, or that James Bond was highly representative of British culture however crass.
“Troubles” by Farrell is very good. Post colonial writer. Doesn’t that category get into any list?
Susheila Nasta, diversity hire, and the bbc, an organisation who wouldn’t recognise objectivity and judging on merit if it smacked it in the face, choose some books by people they approve of for a list.
Yawn. Why does this even merit an article?
‘Because it’s there.’ (George Mallory) ?
You have a point but it’s useful ammunition for us when trying to explain why the BBC has to be detached from the state and fund itself
I used to have this view. Now I’m of the view it is a product of the state and therefore should be disbanded.
Plenty of other options. It’s existence is now a strong negative for the media sector, like a nationalized bank would be. It creates distortion so it is not enough to free it from public funding. It must be actively destroyed.
I would agree but don’t think that’s a realistic target
I think it is inevitable … we don’t even need to help … the Biased Brainwashing Cult is doing all it can to write itself into the dustbin of history.
Times change. If they can topple statues we can topple them. Plus they are in natural decline anyway. Their case gets harder to make by the year.
I would rather see their branding removed, since it is no longer representative of their core mission, values and output apparently, and the entire enterprise broken up and sold off.
While I couldn’t care less about yet another listicle I’m supposed to care about, it does serve one purpose. The artificial desperation of the woke to play down the achievements of white European culture at every opportunity. Literature, the arts generally and the contribution Europeans have made to the world.
At what point do we push back? When do we ridicule them? Should we? Anyone else insulted by it all? Or should we just laugh?
I’m approaching the ridicule and laughter stage.
It’s almost certainly too late but I would say all of the above
I don’t agree it is too late. But I really mean in the sense that they cannot really win. They can cause a lot of destruction, especially by convincing the young we are a horrid culture that must be destroyed so we can atone for our sins.
But the drive that made us who we are is still within us. So wherever we are we will create greatness. It is just the elites with power and money seem caught in the grips of a malaise that is destructive.
I will keep plugging away but don’t think I will see the pendulum swing back in my lifetime, but I imagine it will eventually
The Biased Brainwashing Cult used to be dangerous when people were gullible enough to believe they were impartial and honestly reporting the news, etc. But they have gone so far beyond the point of credibility that the more woke they become the less dangerous they are. They are now at the stage, that we should be pushing them to enjoy the wokeness to the full, because that is the fastest way to see their demise.
I agree. We want moar! Moar unrealistic mixed race couples, moar transgender people, especially reading the news, and moar reminders whites will soon become minority in their own homeland. That last one we want them to do what they are doing in America and gloat about it. Might wake a few people up.
I consider this list insulting and I am disgusted that I am being so insulted.
If you are white then I’m sorry, no luck. If you are a transgender lesbian woman of colour, well that’s different.
I wonder if her majesty has read any of these works?
Is it reasonable to question the credentials of an emeritus professor of modern literature who is able to write “equally as good” although this is probably what one should expect from a “critic, editor, academic and literary activist.”
Indeed. The activist class. Climate activists, social justice activists and now literary ones.
There is an air of patheticness to all this don’t you think? We have people relying on food banks to feed their kids and yet we have people proudly endorsing this nonsense like it matters.
A space was cleared for someone equally as good but whose work was not as well known.
Almost oxymoronic. Perhaps the reason the “equally as good” person is not as well known is because their work is NOT “equally as good”
For ‘professor’ read ‘semi-literate twit’.
It’s the BBC, what do you expect? Diversity is fine apparently as long as it doesn’t include straight eight people.
The one group they fear. And for good reason.
*white
Now I understand. I was wondering what the Beeb had against plea bargaining novelists.
The 1950s list is all junk by non-English writers.
The Beeb would, if compiling a sixteenth-century list, most certainly exclude Shakespeare. White, Christian, middle-class.
And a papist sympathizer, the swine!
Absolutely no mention of Nicholas Seare’s “Rude Tales and Glorious”, one of the best retellings of the Arthurian Romances in the last fifty years. I defy anyone to read of The Feate of Sir Bohort without being reduced to tears of laughter.
Jean Rhys’ Wide Sargasso Sea is a masterpiece. Arguably one of the greatest books of the 20th C
A house for Mr Biswas captures the culture and mentality of displaced colonial Indians perfectly.
Both great books on their own merits and worth reading despite the BBC’s involvement.
I visited Tolkien’s grave a couple of weeks ago, when I was in Oxford. There are little tributes left by visitors, and discrete signs to guide visitors to the grave. While I was there more visitors turned up in the form of a couple of young Cambridge engineering students. The BBC will have a hard time writing Tolkein out of literary history.
The only good judge of literature is time. A century from now they’ll be reading Tolkien, Orwell and Dostoevsky. No one will remember Zadie Smith and other artificially promoted people who serve as diversity props.
The Booker prize is good for judging what time does to the fetishes of elites. There are a handful of winners over the years people still read. Most are forgotten.
I do agree with you, and don’t read much modern fiction as it is pretty lightweight and the stuff that gets promoted by the publishing firms, grim.
I tend to read older stuff that has stood the test of time. Tho I am sure I miss some modern gems that way.
The Wide Sargasso Sea is a masterpiece tho.
I shall always be grateful to Tolkien tho, as he got me reading medieval literature.
I can’t face much modern fiction, but I’m bowled over by the brilliance of Lionel Shriver. I’ve bought all her books and I eagerly await the next one,
No point getting angry about the BBC if you’re still paying for it.
That being said, there’s high probability that if too many people cancelled their direct debit, the government would drop all pretences that it isn’t state television and they’d tax us on it instead.
There is talk of that, adding it into general tax. Didn’t the Germans do this recently?
Are we talking high brow literature or low brow novels? One person’s masterpiece is another persons rubbish. For some James Bond makes for a good read, but is it literature? Likewise Harry Potter.
Harry Potter definitely not.
I think it is on the plus side they missed out Happy Rotter and all that grim New Age/ Occult rubbish. They also missed Enid Blyton, who is little better, but is somewhat in keeping with the worst English lit. courses at the worst UK universities these days.
It is of course dreadful to miss out Evelyn Waugh and Grahame Greene. I happen to think ‘Our Man in Havana’ is a telling tale of the corruption of the spying world and of bureaucratic bungling, and might opt to put that out in front- if slightly out of left field!
In mitigation I think the compilers were focused on representation across the Commonwealth rather than quality per se. Probably we would all create vastly different lists- which is partly what English literature is about, anyway.
“and all that grim New Age/ Occult rubbish.”
No new age/occult rubbish in Harry Potter
How embarrassing for you to be a Harry Potter fan, and presumably an adult at the same time. To be fair, if you’re actually a nine year old girl, and sometimes I do wonder from your posts, then you get a pass.
You can’t colour in Harry Potter books, which is the real reason you hate them.
And there is no ‘grim new age/occult rubbish’ in them either
Actually that was a pretty good comeback, I have to admit. We’ll have to agree to disagree on the extent to which they are occult. Admittedly, my opinion is based on not having read a single word of them. I accidently watched ten minutes of one of the movies once and it gave me a headache.
Having said all, like Voltaire, I would defend to the death JK Rowling’s right to make the comments she has. At the same time, I think she has poisoned the minds of a generation.
If there is no New Age/ Occult stuff in Harry Potter, a boy training to be a wizard, then it follows that there is no Christianity in A.J. Cronin’s “The Keys to the Kingdom”, about a boy learning to become a Christian priest, and then a man being one.
In my view the subject matter is too strong not be a large part of the theme.
Your response is, to a non sequitur, what Hafthor Bjornsson is to a tardigrade.
Harry Potter is fantasy fiction, nothing else.
In your imagination, there is occultism in the books, not in reality.
I’m sorry if you like the Potter books, (as you have every right to) but it is not the occult references that put me off, but the fact that I find them badly expressed, poorly plotted, and imaginatively laboured.
Generally I like fantasy fiction. In fact as literature the best of Pratchett stands up, eg Guards Guards, where is that on the list?
All fiction is imagination, so I cannot see what you are saying. There is healthy and unhealthy imagining, and a difference between subject- matter and theme. In the Potter books the subject-matter is about a boy and companions training to be wizards/ witches, with lots of revenge, violence, and manipulation thrown in. There is no questioning that witchcraft is good, and indeed witchcraft is the way in which so-called ‘good’ triumphs.
I have no problem with novels in the culture where witchcraft is bad. It is not a question of subject-matter. It is a thematic question, and thematically in the Potter books, witchcraft and spells are called ‘good,’ which is inimical to a civilised culture. It doesn’t matter how far or not that is explicit because it is repeatedly assumed by the reader. Indeed CS Lewis, (I think- it might be TSE) posited that it is especially what we read while relaxed and without critical application that is in danger of affecting us on the subconscious level the most, because we are only subliminally aware of it.
Of course you’re illiterate, you mean.
No, I didn’t mean that fiction is imagination, though it is, I am saying the occultism you say is in Harry Potter exists in your imagination, it isn’t in the book at all.
It also isn’t in Tolkien, it also isn’t in Terry Pratchett.
Your posts are truly moronic, a demonstration of the utterly corrosive nature of faith.
I am also amazed you’re posting on this sight since both Lockdown and Environmentalism are fully compatible with your absurdities, your rejection of epistemology.
You still can’t grasp the concept of fantasy which is ironic, given that you have an imaginary friend.
It is simply impossible to miss out Waugh and especially Graham Greene. And I think that there are motives here too. I remember Travels With My Aunt where his free-spirited aunt said that we are losing our freedoms without even knowing it: she was talking about an airport if I recall. They are attempting to create a literary canon based upon nothing but sentimental dilettantism. Look at the amount of self-righteousness expressed in the above list. The English Patient, give me a break. It is like a reading list for an English Literature course at a Scandinavian university.
Tolkien is an interesting omission given the influence of his work and well outside of the English-speaking world. I do recall though dismissals of Lord of the Rings as essentially an affirmation of fascism. Germaine Greer said that she found it to be a tedious and endless retelling of Norse mythology. Which is utterly irrelevant given the impact that it has had on teenage boys. Terry Pratchett said that if LOTR wasn’t your favourite book at age 15 then you might be crazy but if it was your favourite book at age 50 then you are definitely crazy. Perhaps there are darker motives. One ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them. Doesn’t really sit well with the current state of affairs.
Well, Tolkein and C.S.Lewis and that lot created fantasy as a new literary genre, really, I think, influenced by the romance writers from the medieval and early modern period. This literary form is hard for modern literary critics to categorise and understand, as it does not follow the realistic convention of novel writing which developed in the 18th century.
I feel that fantasy is often misunderstood by literary critics as it is miscategorised.
I used to hate my brother’s science fiction in the sixties, but now I can look back on it and see that it is an important literary genre, reflecting the impact of technology and science on society, and characteristic of that period.
The totalitarian impulse never diminishes and the techniques of control have advanced significantly and in the digital realm advance at a rate which is simply beyond the human. If you think that such concerns are overblown then take a look at Shanghai for example. With every passing month our relative power diminishes. There is an urgency about current affairs.
I’m glad to see someone say this. I agree. With Shanghai they are taking notes and I worry they will employ it here. A variant so dangerous no movement allowed at all.
Given the response over the last two years I have no faith enough people would push back. There is a general air of passivity I cannot fathom these days. Most people have absolutely no fight in them.
One ring to rule them all is the villain in Lord of the Rings.
Tolkien did not identify with the villain of his novels.
I shall take this list as a virtuous target to aim for. I’ve read 9 of them over the years. 2 of them twice. The Sea The Sea and Midnight’s children. I can’t say that any of the others bar Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy had any particular effect on me which surely the very best Commonwealth writing should have done. Certainly none as much as Birdsong did.
It takes all tastes of course and Fantasy novels are so non-U currently. Perhaps a bit too male WASP and geeky for this kind of holier than thou list. So perhaps explaining the exclusion of Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings.
I’m astounded Pullman’s His Dark Materials isn’t on the list – it’s fashionably atheistic. It seems as though fantasy is definitely out-of-favour at the BBC. One can only hope this extends to refusing to commission another series of Doctor Who (which morphed into fantasy some time ago).
About twenty years ago the BBC conducted a survey of reading habits, it was called the big read if I recall. There was much to be gleaned from this list of a hundred books. Notably there were very few novels in translation. It is hard to get a Brit to read a novel in translation. hard even to get them to watch a film with subtitles. I am not making an argument for cosmopolitanism but it was notable that.It was rather similar to this list. Then again we shouldn’t insist on a canon of any sort. C.S. Lewis said that the reason that people are put off reading is that they pay too much attention to what they are told what they should read rather than what they really feel like reading.
Jorge Luis Borge said that English literature is one of the greatest adventures in the history of humankind. We should treasure and protect this.
I think WE do. It is our self-appointed guardians we need to watch. Purges are coming. We see it in the US; Shakespeare is banned, but some nonsense about gay wildebeests by Kamil Ongobongo is a must read for the kids.
Aljabeeba is holding its breath for the day it can promote Dianne Abbottopotamus’s literary volcanic eruption.
You’ll feel it rather than read it.
The cancel culture has gone on at least since the 1940s. For example in the study of western philosophy there was a bend away from certain thinkers which often involved their complete omission.As a student I only came across these tendencies by chance and by the good graces of certain teachers. It starts with such an acknowledgement. Whether we have the elan or the brio to assert ourselves again remains to be seen.
One thing in our favour is the lack of competition. The groups they are promoting often lack the spark, so to speak. It is white Europeans who value literature to a much greater degree than many. That helps.
And this list will be consulted by whom outside its authors and usual bunch galoots?
Not so much a Platinum Jubilee List, as a Philistine’s Jamboree List.
There are some good books in there, but also some that are not, and many that are not likely to have been read by UK readers.
In some respects, it looks to me as if someone made a list of books and authors which fit some criteria, such as country, colour and perhaps sex, and which purposely works to excludes certain types of author, but which definitely doesn’t major on literary merit. They then got someone to cut up the list, and put it in a tombola, from which it was drawn at random, to produce the final Platinum (more a base metal like lead) list.
I wonders how many of these tours de force have enjoyed Royal perusal?
You can only really read the literature of your time if you care about it. Solzhenitsyn in Cancer Ward or The First Circle for example. The sense that you belong to a living tradition. This is a vapid list of accidental vanity pieces that suited the post war defeatist sensibility. Has to be deep and meaningful you know just in case it gets knocked for superficiality. And of course it has to be inclusive. It is a joke compared with the highly developed English sensibility. You should toss it out these people mean nothing but your demise.
I agree with every word, especially the last bit. This is part of the death wish. Letting self-appointed nonentities pick a list of books specifically designed to diminish us and champion diversity.
I read a lot, but of those 70 books, I’ve only heard of 13 of them, and read none of them. Fleming would have been a good choice – a Briton, living in Jamaica and his first Bond novel being set on that island. I guess his use of the words ‘homo’ and ‘nigger’ in the Bond novels would automatically exclude him from any list complied by the BBC; not to mention his portrayal of women.
Feminized bullshit who cares. You will find out about the novels that really matter when you are up against the wall.
It’s the Biased Brainwashing Cult … it was never going to produce a list based on merit.
I have read several of these books, and they were all excellent. JK Rowling has been very successful, but I certainly wouldn’t include any of her books on such a list. I think the most glaring omission is Rose Tremain, who is, in my opinion, the greatest living writer.
The Ishiguro and Mantel books are well worth reading for anyone that hasn’t; Le Carre fair enough, although I always had a preference for Deighton. Nothing against Hitchhikers Guide but it’s a pick based on cultural impact not literary skill and both Tolkien and Rowling are better by either measure. And since it’s supposed to be a list for the Jubilee how can you not have Dick Francis. Overall it just comes off like a snobby librarian telling you what you “should” read, not what any normal person would recommend to their friends based on what is enjoyable to read.
Any list that omits P G Wodehouse, the great comic genius, is dead to me.
A bit close to Empire, old boy. Kindly turn yourself in to the nearest Adjustment Centre. They’ll straighten you out in a jiffy. Can’t have the plebs reading about different times; the UK only really got going with the election of New Labour remember. The rest was nonstop genocide, imperialism and slavery, all if which were invented by us.
Not the last 70 years
Toby writes:
I have to confess, the only I’ve read is Tinker, Tailer, Soldier, Spy. How about you?
Well everyone’s read Hitchhiker’s Guide, haven’t they? Only one on the list I’ve read; then again I read very little fiction.
It was fiction? Damn, I thought something was wrong with my towel.
Good one!
No Mary Renault? Pathetic woke list. More telling us what to think.
I thought the list was about books not cars
Like Toby, I’ve only read Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy by John Le Carre from this list. I’m not especially proud of that, as I expect some of the other books are worth reading. But I think to omit Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings is extraordinary; also C S Lewis. I find I can’t read much contemporary literature – I am afraid that I ask the same question that C S Lewis asked: ‘Was the archaic simply the civilised, and the modern simply the barbaric?’
Usual woke rubbish from the bbc.
I wish people would get this het up about vaccine mandates, mask mandates, lockdowns. Things that caused severe harm and death, loss of income, economic ruin for small businesses, disruption of children’s education. You can actually read any of these books anytime you want.
I did actually and still do!
At a quick count only 17 of the 70 authors are from the UK itself anyway. All the rest are from Commonwealth countries, which is fair enough, but to leave the most commercially successful author in the World off that list somewhat devalues the whole project. All because the BBC don’t like her anti woke views on gender. Churlish behaviour to say the least!
Lets be honest, this is just a jubilee reading list, it’s not the greatest books or authors of the last 70 years. It never was meant to be, otherwise this woke collection of unreadable would never have made the top 500, let alone 70! See it for what it is, an opportunity for the Left to shove a finger in our eyes
Rowling is always reminded of her faux pas in the media concerning trans, but Lewis Hamilton is not.. I wonder why that is. Is it because JK ain’t black and fell on the sword of BLM worship?!
It would appear the woke anti JK’ers are out in force on these comments
Having something on the list that sold in millions to the proles would never do.
I consider myself pretty well read, having read literature across the centuries from Ovid and Homer to Proust and Grossman. I have not read a single one of these books.
HHGTTG was made into a series by the BBC as well as an awful film
Apart from that Muriel Spark and a few others the rest “high brow” garbage meant to be read to impress people rather than enjoyed
Fir example after watching Wolf Hall I tried reading the book – heavier going than a M$ software manual
I can’t read Wolf Hall or any of her others because they are written in the present tense – a horrible cheap style trick that puts me straight off any novel.
Hmm. I haven’t read many of those. Can’t see me doing so either.
I’ve read: A Clockwork Orange; Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy; The Handmaid’s Tale; The Remains of the Day; The English Patient; Life of Pi. Heard of a handful more and seem to have stopped reading two decades ago.
I see the professor pointedly doesn’t name the other author thought equally as good but not as well known chosen in J. K. Rowling’s place.
But as we all well know the BBC don’t do merit today but box tick which this list epitomises as every country has been included, merited or not.
Toby my god! I thought I was the world’s worst reader, I have read 3 of these, Clockwork range, Hanging Rock and The Sea The Sea
Moreover, I think JK Rowling is crap and didn’t think that much of Tolkein either
I liked the Hobbit but 3/4 in to the Lord of the RIngs at age 15 I decided I had enough and put it down. I knew how it was going to end and the style was getting on my nerves. Gollum was interesting though, as a model of corruption.
In a podcast recently (London Calling) Toby was talking about how he was reading the CS Forester Hornblower books. That’s another who should be on the list. He was also reading a book by Bernard Cornwell, Sharpe’s Trafalgar. He obviously only reads what he likes – sensible.