Top 100 Books

With the craze that surrounded Harry Potter and all things magical, the BBC decided to publish a 'Top 100' list as part of their 'Big Read'. The book was supposed to indicate books that everyone should read, however I found the list quite erroneous (how can all 7 Harry Potter books make the fold). Judge for yourself:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/bigread/top100.shtml

Anyway, I found this list on the Guardian and deem it far more comprehensive and, in my personal taste, correct:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/08/books.booksnews

Here's a few notes, please disagree:

Firstly, the list is less suffocating as it hasn't numbered the entries, this allows the reader slightly more freedom in discerning for themselves where each entry should lie.

It dates well, whereas the BBC version was slightly compact and overly modern, the Guardian is far more ubiquitous and rounded.

A problem with the Guardians version, is that it has 'complete works', which feels obvious and contrived. After all, Kafka's best book is not his 'complete works'. Quite stupid really.

That's about all, as a side-note, Crime and Punishment shouldn't be in either. It's overrated. (Sorry)

Literature Adaptations

Hollywood producers are increasingly adapting works of literature. Producing films from literature can be a way of bringing some of the best stories ever told into the visual world, and while they can be riveting upon fruition, I think there are some book adaptations that ratify the wide-spread contention that some books are quite simply unadaptable.

For example, two books that I quite adore, Kerouac's On the Road and Don DeLillo's Cosmopolis, premiered at Cannes film festival over the last week on the big screen. Both these films were done by rather artistic, creative and esteemed directors, giving them every chance of success. However, these are books that I would deem unadaptable, and are certainly not meant for an adaptation that veers towards entertaining the inevitable demographics which, unfortunately, they will ultimately seek.

Both films have a twilight star in main roles, and both have been, according to early reviews, and their trailers, diluted to suit a wide reaching audience. If both films are not successful, as early reviews also indicate, I believe it is not because of shortcomings in their scripts or failure from the reputable directors and writers who took part in these projects, but rather due to the fact that certain books are simply not meant for the big screen. They can't be diluted or glamorized because this in itself defeats their point.

When I heard these two books were becoming films I was slightly bemused, I am not against the idea of adapting classic or contemporary works of literature, my problem is that certain novels shouldn't be adapted (including the aforementioned two), and it seems these films may very well amplify my contention.