How to be Well Read: A Guide to 500 Great Novels and a Handful of Literary Curiosities

by John Sutherland

Ranging all the way from Aaron's Rod to Zuleika Dobson, via The Devil Rides Out and Middlemarch, literary connoisseur and sleuth John Sutherland offers his very personal guide to the most rewarding, most remarkable and, on occasion, most shamelessly enjoyable works of fiction ever written.

He brilliantly captures the flavour of each work and assesses its relative merits and demerits. He shows how it fits into a broader context and he offers endless snippets of intriguing information: did you know, for example, that the Nazis banned Bambi or that William Faulkner wrote As I Lay Dying on an upturned wheelbarrow; that Voltaire completed Candide in three days, or that Anna Sewell was paid £20 for Black Beauty? It is also effectively a history of the novel in 500 or so wittily informative, bite-sized pieces.

Encyclopaedic and entertaining by turns, this is a wonderful dip-in book, whose opinions will inform and on occasion, no doubt, infuriate.

Genres: Nonfiction, Books About Books, Reference, Literature, Literary Fiction, Literary Criticism

560 pages, Paperback

First published December 25, 2012

About the author

John Andrew Sutherland is an English academic, newspaper columnist and author. He is Emeritus Lord Northcliffe Professor of Modern English Literature at University College London.

Reviews

[Valeriu Gherghel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ce înseamnă „om citit” sau „om foarte citit”? Am căutat o sugestie în prefața laconică (doar o pagină) a volumului. N-am găsit nici una. Am remarcat, totuși, modestia autorului care nu se consideră un individ „well read”. Putem deduce însă că a fi în stare să rezumi (destul de fidel) 500 de romane este un semn că poți trece în ochii celorlalți drept „om citit”.

Dar poți considera „citit” un autor care se rezumă la literatură și, din literatură, numai la roman? Îndrăznesc să am serioase îndoieli. Omul citit mai deschide și cărțile lui Seneca, și eseurile lui Montaigne, și scrisorile lui Flaubert către Louise Colet. În plus, poți considera citit un om care a străbătut cu creionul în mînă un număr precis de cărți, 50, 200 (ca Shakespeare) sau 500 (ca Sutherland)? Numărul cărților străbătute (și studiate) nu spune mare lucru despre „omul citit”. Un cititor obișnuit de azi străbate mult mai multe cărți decît Platon, Aristotel și Seneca la un loc. E mai citit decît ei? Dacă numărul cărților ar conta cît de cît în definiția insului „well read”, răspunsul ar fi neîndoielnic afirmativ. În felul lui, orice cititor care a parcurs mai multe cărți decît Aristotel se cuvine elogiat prin expresia „foarte citit”.

Mi se pare limpede că numărul cărților nu prea contează în definiția nostră. Și că e mult mai important modul de a citi o carte și concluziile pe care le tragi după ce o închizi. Cărțile se citesc de plăcere, firește, dar și pentru a învăța ceva cu privire la tine însuți, cu privire la ceilalți, cu privire la viață. Dacă o carte nu te-a pus pe gînduri și nu te-a „modificat”, ai citit-o degeaba.

Dar să revin la volumul lui John Sutherland. Autorul a citit 500 de romane și oferă cititorilor 500 de rezumate minuțioase. Unii ar spune că exagerează cu amănuntele. Chiar cînd comentează un roman polițist de Dorothy L. Sayers (Gaudy Night, 1935), nu ține seama de principiul „spoiler alert” și ne oferă (glumind) cheia enigmei (p.177). Uneori, prezentările conțin mici inexactități: cînd comentează Doctor Jivago de Boris Pasternak (p.116), sau Disgrace de J.M. Coetzee (p.115). Sutherland și-a propus să facă rezumate și nu eseuri speculative. Nici Război și pace nu scapă fără un rezumat (p.475). Scrie: „A rezuma în doar 700 de cuvinte acest roman e ca și cum ai planta un stejar într-un ghiveci pentru flori”. Și precizează că a împrumutat imaginea dintr-un text redactat de Emily Brontë (care nu auzise, cu siguranță, de Tolstoi).

Ceea ce nu înțeleg la criticii literari de limbă engleză este refuzul de a folosi ordinea cronologică. În Ex Libris: 100+ Books to Read and Reread, Michiko Kakutani își dispune prezentările în ordinea alfabetică a autorilor (Homer vine după Borges). John Sutherland își organizează volumul după ordinea alfabetică a titlurilor.

În încheiere, voi spune că mie îmi plac teribil rezumatele. În definitiv, pînă și rezumatul unui roman este o interpretare.

P. S. Să mai spun că John Sutherland are un suflet larg? Spun. Nu face nazuri și prezintă binevoitor romanul din 2011 al lui E.L. James, Fifty Shades of Grey (p.121). Nu sînt sigur că a fi citit înseamnă a străbate și astfel de confecții populare. Cărțile bune sînt prea multe pentru a-ți pierde vremea cu Fifty Shades of Grey...

[Paul Bryant · Rating 3 out of 5]

I need to update this review. When I got this six years ago I thought it was harebrained and kind of silly, but over the years I've picked it up and found 30 minutes slipped by easily on many occasions. I STILL don't quite get what it's for except that if there are some novels you know you definitely won't read but you're curious about you can get a detailed and sardonic summary of the whole plot here.

Now, you have to go over these entries with a magnifying glass to find any clue to whether Prof Sutherland actually liked the book or not. You might assume that he did, because it’s included here, but wait -THIS ISN’T A GUIDE.

Check it out : in the preface, he says

This book is not a guide, a reference book, or a “best of” compilation

Now, what does it say on the title page… here, lemme quote that for you:

A GUIDE TO 500 GREAT NOVELS

I guess John Sutherland musta had a slapped-brow head-desk moment when he got his preview copy.



"I told them, I told them"

Well, leaving that ridiculousness aside, what IS this thick wedge of a book? He says

The intention in what follows is to share a lifelong enthusiasm for that wonderful human invention, the prose novel.

John Sutherland must think these entries sparkle with his lifelong enthusiasm for novels, but maybe it’s the same enthusiasm that undertakers have for corpses – they love them and care for them deeply but you’d never know to look at them. Professional and reserved at all times but with the merest hint of humour on occasion.

But this not-guide does have a point for me however, because it does mention a whole host of novels I’d never heard of or, if I had, never had any intention of reading.

Examples from first category:

Hanta Yo : Ruth Beebe Hill
Left Behind : Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins
Outerbridge Reach : Robert Stone
The Old Men at the Zoo : Angus Wilson

And second category:

The Rats : James Herbert
Riders of the Purple Sage : Zane Grey
The Groves of Academe : Mary McCarthy
The Good Earth : Pearl S Buck

So it’s kinda useful for that. Anyway, I do like books about books, I know they’re a bit porny but hey, this is the site where people like to sniff books, follow books in the street, stalk books, dress books up in uniforms, probably marry books for all I know.

[Jo · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought this was possibly going to be quite serious and would break down a lot of the classics. There was a little of this but also a fair amount of not so serious summations of plots. Plus, why is 50 Shades in a book on being well read??!!

[Alicia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Any selection or listing of books will be necessarily subjective but at least here you are in the hands of someone who really knows what he is about and while he enlightens, he entertains.

John Sutherland is my favourite UK critic (Michael Dirda in the US) and he is responsible for many books on my personal TBR. However, I must admit to being a little disappointed at certain weaknesses of chauvinism and a bit of snobbishness, perhaps unavoidable in someone of his age and position. No one is perfect.

There are 520 books reviewed here (20 extra in the updated edition to take it to the second decade of the the 21st century) and some are admittedly included for curiosity or information, rather than literary quality. So for that reason I'm boggled at the complete omission of Truman Capote, and in particular In Cold Blood, a groundbreaking book and a prominent writer of his time. His peers get plenty of column inches for far lesser books, so it would seem to indicate a deliberate blind spot.

Less mysterious is the general absence of Australian writers. White and Carey are the sole mentions which is disappointing, given Tim Winton's shelf full of Miles Franklin awards added to his Booker nomination.

These are minor gripes though, in such a huge reading and reviewing effort. The fact that it is so compulsively readable is due in part to Sutherland being able to communicate his lifelong love of reading to his reader.

[Noel Ward · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this. It’s maybe closer to 4 than 5 stars but I’m rounding up because I added so many books to my to-read list. The title is the worst thing about this- it isn’t a guide to being well read at all. It’s a compendium of mini reviews that covers a wide range including some very terrible books indeed.

[Colin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love books about books, particularly if they are packed with academic trivia, and I relish those by John Sutherland in particular. His love of reading and the breadth of his reading always shine through, as does his enthusiasm for sharing his favourite books. How to be Well Read consists of pithy articles about '500 great novels and a handful of literary curiosities'. They range from established classics, to genre favourites and some that are downright mad or dangerous. What I most love from this sort of book (apart from the trivia), is the opportunity to compare notes about books that I have read and enjoyed with Sutherland's own thoughts, and also to discover new books, or be reminded of books that I'd meant to read but then forgotten about. So far, I've read and enjoyed a number of books that I discovered or rediscovered though How to be Well Read - books like Peter Carey's Jack Maggs, Richard Hughes' The Fox in the Attic and A High Wind in Jamaica, with plenty of others also added to my to be read list. These are books that I just wouldn't have encountered if it hadn't been for this wonderful, benevolent guide to a wonderful range of books.

[Judith Rich · Rating 5 out of 5]

Any new John Sutherland is a delight. I quite clearly haven't read enough of these, although interestingly a few of them seem to be chosen deliberately as ones to avoid - plus one is made up.

I shall of course try to read more, but I'm still on 1001 BTRBYD.....

[John Hardy · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author reviews hundreds of great books, good books, boring books, ancient books, modern books, foreign books - in fact the whole gamut of books. This isn't going to be a quick read at around 500 pages, but it isn't intended to be. I'll perhaps use it as a guide to books I might want to read, or re-read. Some I read in childhood and certainly did not understand, so they might be worth another look.
Now that I'm finished, I can say that it was worth my while reading this. While there were quite a few entries that would be of no interest to me, and which I skipped over, there were many where I recognised the book and / or the author. Some I have read, possibly many years ago. Some classic books I read as a child or adolescent would most likely have gone over my head, but my mother kept pushing them my way. Educating John, lol. Although the idea of reading them again as an adult has an appeal in fantasy, I doubt whether I will be able to push myself to the task without some external motivation.
All that has nothing to do with the book, so I will just say that the author has done a good job with this collection, and recommend it to anyone with an interest in books. There would be no use, for example, in complaining that this or that work has been omitted, considering the tremendous number of books that have been published in the last 500 years or so.
Happy reading.

[Pat · Rating 2 out of 5]

An interesting list with a short description on each book, however I have a couple of issues. The major one-full of spoilers and not just for the well known choices. Two-there a lot of books here I would never entertain reading particularly when the author choses the most stomach churning/explicit quotes from the most controversial books. And what is 50 Shades of Grey’ doing in here!. If that’s classed as being well read, no thanks. On the plus I was introduced to a few books I’d never heard of that I might enjoy and there were touches of humour in some of the commentary. I think there are better ‘literature list’ books out there.

[Robert Bagnall · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wonderful bedside reading as this collects 700-odd word essays on each of its subjects, each of them thoughtful, even if you are sometimes left wondering whether the book’s any good. As if to illustrate, it’s only made me want to read one of them, and that’s been adapted by Amazon as a tv series, so perhaps it’s failed at its main task?

[Tony Hannan]

Having bought this, I had to challenge myself to read every book listed, A to Z, didn't I? It's a task that at a conservative estimate will take 25 years, although I doubt I've got that long left on the planet. I can skip the ones I've already read, if I like, which should knock a few months off. That seems fair enough. #SutherlandChallenge

[Cal · Rating 1 out of 5]

Instead of giving me tawdry details of the authors' personal lives and using pretentious words to say nothing effective, please actually do what the blurb advertises and tell me why I should read those books. Ideally in a readable format

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very good source of recommendations for excellent books. Sutherland has broad and democratic taste, and is indeed very well-read. Recommends obscure books I hadn't heard of, underrated gems from authors I knew and made vivid classics which I'd otherwise not been keen to read. Fun and readable.

[Rafael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great recommendations

[Aleksandar Todorovski · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great if you want to check if your high school literature teacher missed on anything.

[Derek Henderson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Rather odd selection. Sutherland's summaries lack sparkle and, unfortunately, the jokes often don't land.

[Victoria · Rating 3 out of 5]

A collection of reviews, comments and considerations on many books of several genres.
Some reviews were more complete than others, I liked better the ones that offered insight on the writers' background and the cultural/political context. Others weren’t quite reviews but considerations on and gave little info on the actual content of the book.

[The Bookish Wombat · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is definitely not the sort of book to read cover to cover. It gives short synopses and some critical thoughts on a range of novels from airport blockbusters to culture so high that they're nearly impossible to read. It's fun to see what the author (an academic) thinks of the books you've read and I picked up a few to add to my To Read list.

[Rose · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fun to read, very short pieces on 519 books ranging from pop fiction to classics. Very interesting to see his takes on books I have read, as well as some intriguing suggestions for future reading.

[Mary · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great book to dip into and out of. So many authors and books I've never heard of.