Diversity?! Dude, this list is not only undiversified in its Anglo-centric-ness, it is undiversified among its Anglo-centric works. Dickens is on there SIX TIMES, Austen four; they insist you read the COMPLETE Works of Shakespeare (R U KIDDING ME? If Stephen Greenblatt hasn't read ALL of Shakespeare, I don't think we should make that accomplishment worth ONLY one lousy point). But reading Hamlet? That'll do you for the equivalent of ALL. They do something similar when they list "The Chronicles of Narnia" and "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" as two separate points.
I was also a bit taken aback by the lack if Mann or Kafka or Sartre, and that was before reading your comment.
I've got 27 read, but only 8 partial. For some unfathomable reason, my read books are similar to the ones above. . .
Finally, this list lacks "Harold and the Purple Crayon," the greatest work of literature known to man, and as such I declare it null and void.
no subject
I was also a bit taken aback by the lack if Mann or Kafka or Sartre, and that was before reading your comment.
I've got 27 read, but only 8 partial. For some unfathomable reason, my read books are similar to the ones above. . .
Finally, this list lacks "Harold and the Purple Crayon," the greatest work of literature known to man, and as such I declare it null and void.