Professional Documents
Culture Documents
75 Great Books - Miles Mathis
75 Great Books - Miles Mathis
mileswmathis.com/booklist.html
by Miles Mathis
Here is the list. Please read it carefully, including the “clever” blurbs I have taken straight
from the article.
What We Talk About When We Talk About Love, by Raymond Carver. “That morning she
pours Teacher's over my belly and licks it off. That afternoon she tries to jump out the
window.” And that's not even the best line.
The Grapes of Wrath, by John Steinbeck. Because its all about the titty.
1/12
Blood Meridian, by Cormac McCarthy
The Things They Carried, by Tim O'Brien. No one else has written so beautifully about
human remains hanging from tree branches.
Hell's Angels, by Hunter S. Thompson. Because it's his first book, and because he got his
ass kicked for it, and because in the book and the beating were the seeds of all that came
after, including the bullet in the head.
Dog Soldiers, by Robert Stone. Begins in Saigon, ends in Death Valley. Somewhere in
between you realize that profit is second only to survival
Winter's Bone, by Daniel Woodrell. The best book by a modern-day Twain, high on meth,
drousy with whiskey
For Whom the Bell Tolls, by Ernest Hemingway. A lesson in manhood: even when you’re
damned, you press on.
The Killer Angels, by Michael Shaara. Because the Battle of Gettysburg took place in that
blue-gray area between black and white.
Sophie's Choice, by William Styron. It's not about Sophie or her choice. It's about Stingo.
Plainsong, by Kent Haruf. Because: "A girl is different. They want things. They need things
on a regular schedule. Why, a girl's got purposes you and me can't even imagine. They got
ideas in their heads you and me can't even suppose."
The Crack-Up, by F. Scott Fitzgerald. Because Fitzgerald knew Lindsay, Britney and the
Olsens better than we do. (And because it was first published in Esquire.)
The Power and the Glory, by Graham Greene. A kind of flesh-bound Bible.
Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, by James Agee and Walker Evans
What is the most amazing statistic about that list? Do you need Gloria Steinem to tell you? I
don't. One out of seventy-five, 1/75. According to Esquire, men don't need to read books by
women. They can get all the information they need from Kent Haruf, who is so wise to
women that he knows that, "They got ideas in their heads you and me can't even suppose."
No need to discover what those ideas really are, by reading Jane Austen or George Eliot or
A. S. Byatt. No, just knowing that women are alien is enough.
But let’s look at all those blurbs, in order. The Raymond Carver quote is embarrassing for
both the quoter and the quoted. It is hard to tell what is the best line in the book, but this
isn’t the worst line in the book. It is representative of the book, however, and that is the
problem. The homely sentence posing as modern, the careless posing as spare, and the
insensible posing as humorous. Beyond that, I am not convinced anyone at Esquire
actually read the book, since this quote is taken straight from Amazon.com.3 You would
think that someone who had read the book could choose their own favorite quote. If that
isn’t the best quote, why not lead with the best? Because that would require reading the
book and forming a real opinion.
After that we are told that The Grapes of Wrath is “all about the titty.” Yes, just as The
Odyssey is all about the poontang. Go Calypso! Who says these guys aren’t qualified to
judge great literature?
The Tim O’Brien blurb is pretty accurate, although they might have said the same of
Cormac McCarthy. In neither case does the prose match the subject.
Re the Hunter S. blurb: Should we really consider reading books for those reasons? But the
editors at Esquire clearly do. Take note: this is the level of things that impress them.
In the Robert Stone blurb, we find that “profit is second only to survival.” To Donald
Trump, maybe.
In the Daniel Woodrell blurb, we have the modern-day Twain both high and drousy. One
question, would Twain, transported into the 21st century, really be writing on meth and
whiskey? No boys, it was and still would be cigars.
5/12
We should read Jim Harrison because “Harrison is as masculine and raw and unrelenting
as they come.” And because he has a big hairy dick, no doubt. Could these editors sound
any more wimpy and repressed?
Then we get another “lesson in manhood” with Hemingway. These guys even admit they
need a lesson in manhood, and go to books to get it. I wonder if they have tried gay porn.
Then we find out that “Gettysburg took place in that blue-gray area between black and
white.” The guys couldn’t come up with anything here, so they just cribbed from the jacket
flap, stealing copy from Joe the Office Squibber.
Also good to know that Sophie’s Choice is about Stingo (since he’s the narrator). They had
to read all the way through page one to discover that brilliant insight.
Then we get a rotten quote from Kent Haruf, which could have just as easily have been
penned by Rocky Balboa.
After that, we learn that A Confederacy of Dunces is the “fart joke as literature”. An
intelligent reader would not necessarily take that as a recommendation, but Esquire knows
it audience.
The Fitzgerald blurb is perhaps the worst of the bunch. F. Scott would not want to know
Britney or the Olsons any better (or at all) but clearly these editors do, and they go to
literature for clandestine tips.
Lastly, we are told that Greene has written “a kind of flesh-bound Bible.” Really?
Supposing that has some meaning beyond one that Hannibal Lecter would understand, I
find it unlikely that Greene has exceeded the Bible in any category, especially in fleshiness,
rawness, or the ability to bind.
Now, I have to admit I haven’t read all the books in this list. But I also have to admit that
these blurbs don’t lead me to rush out and devour those few I am missing. Just the
opposite. A recommendation in this company falls like acid into my ear. Beyond that, the
list is heavy with new novels, and I avoid new novels like the plague. These editors don’t
seem to understand that literature does not have to be novels, or even fiction. What this list
needs is a scrubbing of modern novels written for businessmen, ex-jocks, and panty boys
who think they wish they had a war to go to, and their replacement with writings that could
actually broaden a reader beyond the late-American war/sports/hometown boy level.
6/12
X Dubliners, by James Joyce
[The Xs and Ys were added 2017. X indicates a probable agent; Y indicates a possible
agent. Or, X indicates someone I have since researched and found to be compromised; Y
indicates someone I have not researched, but who has sent up red flags in the research of
others.]
That leaves us 66 places to fill. But I can’t even leave this list of 9 alone. The first half of
Huckleberry Finn is a masterpiece, but the rest is bombast. Same with Lolita. I like both
these authors, though, and want to leave them on the list, so I am just going to replace the
books recommended.
To be clear, I still recommend reading about Lolita and Huck. I just think their faults keep
them off this list. In this way, I am tipping my hand: my list will not be the 75 greatest
books ever written, but 75 recommended authors, with sample books. The first list would
be heavy with repeats, and Shakespeare and Nietzsche and Dostoevsky would hog all the
top spots. Kurt Vonnegut and Mark Helprin wouldn’t hope to make such list, and even so I
am keeping them mainly as a nod to the present. It is unlikely that anything from the 20th
century would make a final list, compiled by the gods, but I also have an eye to my
audience. Neither they nor I want a list without anything readable on it. They can get a list
of textbooks from St. John’s College, but I am trying to make up a list here that is at the
same time broad, readable, enlightening, and iconoclastic. No sense me giving you a list
that is the same as everyone else’s list.
X Manfred, Byron
8/12
Oedipus Rex, Sophocles
Gigi, Colette
Nibelungenlied, Anon.
9/12
Y Ethan Frome, Edith Wharton
Y Possession, A. S. Byatt
Y Dialogues, Plato
Iliad, Homer
Daodejing, Laozi
[As you see, I have learned a lot in the past 7 years. It is possible that many others of these
authors are compromised, or all of them, but I will have to discover that for myself. I would
strike several of these listings completely, but I leave them up for historical reasons—so
that we can both remember how this paper was originally written. The ones I would strike
right now are Chomsky, Nabokov, Arendt, Joyce, Twain, Muller, Orwell, and Byron.]
I had to nix Euclid’s Elements and Newton’s Principia as not highly readable, although
they are greater books than some on this list. I also bumped other classics like The Divine
Comedy, Paradise Lost, and The Aeneid, to make room for books you are more likely to
read. I am replacing the Esquire’s top 75, after all, not Mortimer Adler’s top 100.
Admittedly, Karl Popper and Einstein are not much easier to read, but they are a bit closer
to home.
10/12
The main difference, it seems to me, in my list and theirs is that I am not trying to “prove
my manhood” or show how hairy my arms are. I don’t care if you know I am a man, much
less an American man, but the guys at Esquire have to throw that in your face on every
page, as if they are competing with the editors at Playboy or Maxim. They don’t want to be
mistaken for Oprah Book Club pansies, so they don’t include Annie Proulx or Barbara
Kingsolver, but in making up this list they have done Oprah one worse. At least Oprah is
un-self-consciously shallow and insular and pathetic. These guys couldn’t be more
transparent in their need to read about murder and war and sports and the mob and
cowboys and all the other middle-America pseudo-manly pseudo-mythology of fake self-
support. Oprah and her 50 million girls have no eye for beauty or depth, but at least they
don’t choose their soft-core reading to be “girly.” These guys, as is usual with the modern
man, have one eye on the mirror and one eye on their co-workers, even as they claim to
read a book. This means they must be reading with their noses.
And even that may be giving them too much credit. In compiling my own list1, I realized
how easy it would have been for Esquire to have compiled this list from other lists, without
ever cracking a cover. I have already shown you how they borrowed their Carver quote, and
the rest of the blurbs are equally suspect. It looks to me like Esquire collated two lists.
First, they got a list of recent book award winners, going back to, say, 1980. Then they
sprinkled that list lightly with choices from a great books list, probably the Modern Library
list. Their list has so few older books simply because they didn’t recognize much on the
great books list. It was safer to stick with recent critically acclaimed novels than to risk that
an older choice had become uncool, for reasons unknown to them.
And even that may be giving them too much credit. It is also possible, even likely, that this
list is only a partial fake, rather than a total fake. Meaning, the selection committee didn’t
just cobble together other lists, they actually tried to read these books, tried to like them,
and convinced themselves that they kind of did. This is worse because it is infinitely more
pathetic than just flat out lying. I could respect someone who at least knew modern
literature wasn’t worth fooling with, and just copied off the next guy’s paper to save himself
the trouble. But it is hard to respect someone who not only listens to critics, but also takes
them at their word.
Yes, this is the modern way to look smart: you read the New York Times and then parrot
its opinions. If the publishers tell you Don DeLillo is a great writer, via the hired hacks at
the newspapers and magazines, then Don DeLillo is a great writer. You would look like a
fool to deny it.
In this way, literary criticism is an analogue of art criticism. Why should we expect readers
to have independent opinions when art buyers and museum goers do not? The current
milieu has made it clear that, in art, people will take whatever you give them, and say they
like it. With books, we should expect the same. As in art, the prize committees are
populated by people with direct connections to the market, and they are in the business of
11/12
promotion. The reader’s job is to swallow this promotion down whole, and the modern
reader does this job quite well. Critics and publishers bemoan the fact that “serious
literature” sells so poorly, but given its quality, I am amazed it sells so well. I can’t believe
the market finds a single reader for most of this “poetry” and novelizing and commentary.
While I am here recommending things, I will recommend one of the only sensible critiques
of modern novels I have ever seen, B. R. Myers’ A Reader’s Manifesto.2 Parts of it were
published in 2001 in Atlantic, and it has since been published as a book. While in my
opinion Myers still doesn’t go far enough, as a whole, in his critique of new novels, he goes
into much finer detail than I have been able to go here.
1For the loaned
they are record,out
I made up my list straight from my own shelves. I have all these books in my house right now (unless
to friends).
12/12