50 Books Challenge 2025 Part Three

I think that where Captain Corelli differs from Eleanor Oliphant etc is that it has stood the test of time. It may have been a bestseller when it first came out, but it's still remembered and loved now. There's no chance IMO of that being true for EO in 30 years' time.

I think, and I hope everyone knows that I'm the last person to be a Book Snob. Like @AgualusasLover I enjoyed 50 Shades Of Grey and in recent times I've read and enjoyed (with caveats) several Jilly Coopers. All books are great.

But I would say that there's a reason why some books become Classics (Jane Eyre) or Modern Classics (Handmaids Tale) whilst others remain mass market and are never elevated as such.

In the last 6 months I've read two books (Good Material and We Solve Murders) that have mentioned the Boots Meal Deal. Are they perfectly acceptable reading material. YES. Are they contributing to Literature As An Art Form - probably not.

Did I find them both easy reads? Yes
Am I finding the Count Of Monte Cristo a challenge? Yes

Is it more worthy as a reading choice? Who can say? It's not really working for me.

I'd just like to say from my own perspective that very long posts being unnecessarily quoted is making the thread harder to read, for me anyway, but I really don't want to be thought of as Thread Police

Peace And Love Folks!

I had to read the toothpaste tube whilst brushing my teeth. Riveting stuff!

I'm finding this a really interesting discussion. It's good to hear all your opinions, and makes me think about my own. I tend to agree with @JaninaDuszejko that one of the benefits of reading fiction is that it makes you consider a viewpoint that may be very different from your own. But also, like @Pickandmixusername, I have a non reading DH who is intelligent and empathetic so 🤷‍♀️

What a great post and explanation of why you think reading fiction is A Good Thing.

I do agree with you I think in general, so really appreciate your well thought out post although I know it was not aimed at me directly.

I'd just like to apologise in case I offended anyone by agreeing with other comments around 'books for people who don't read'.

FWIW I think I was partially projecting as I was annoyed by something that happened a long time ago. My work colleagues were very much 'read what's popular' and knew I read more diversely, so they were dismissive of my EO suggestion because they hadn't heard of it before but then raved about it when everyone began to talk about it. But tbh it was reflective of their overall attitude towards me so I know its more of a 'me' problem than anything else.

Since I was the one to use the phrase 'books for people who don't read' I think I should probably explain myself. A typical literary novel would be sold 250 times annually, 3000 over its lifetime. In comparison Captain Corelli's Mandolin had sold 1.5M copies in the UK in first 5 years after it was initially published. When it came out in 1994 it was everywhere. The only way a book can be that popular is if lots of people who don't normally read much buy that book. That's just a fact and isn't a value judgement of the book or the people who read it.

Secondly, after the initial good publicity there's a bit of a backlash to bestsellers. In CCM's case, there's the non-favourable comparison with García Márquez, and the unhappiness in Cephalonia about how the war in Greece was portrayed. In EO and Crawdads it's the simplistic way they overcomes their childhood trauma. These issues in the characterisation are more likely to be noticed by people who read a lot or those who have experience of the topic the book is about. So the book becomes a bit controversial because it talks to some people but not others and enough people have read it for it to have an opinion (see also the multimillion selling BBB).

I'm very much of the opinion that fictional stories are good for people, whether they are consumed as books or films or plays or TV. They take you out of yourself and make you experience the world from someone else's viewpoint. So these best sellers are good because they can act to tempt occasional readers into becoming regular readers. People who already read a lot can either avoid them or choose to read them as a lighter read.

My comment was intended to be jokey and throwaway in the same way we joke about the 'female relative of the male job title' books or the 'small retail business in the back of beyond' books.

I agree with you on the Mail. I'd actually campaign to STOP people reading there (joking...kind of...)

Well, thanks for clarifying.

No. That’s not what I said at all. You’re assuming I’m talking about fiction. I’m absolutely not. I’m talking about the act of reading, full stop. And I’m talking about a general population where too many people don’t read at all, or only read the Mail which can succeed in indoctrinating them because they don’t know how to read with any discernment. And anything that gets people like that reading anything else at all is pretty much always going to be a good thing imo, even cereal packets.

Lovely post. I agree with you

Thank you for your views. I like reading people's thoughts on this.

So, when you say, "well as long as it gets people reading, isn't that a great thing?", can i ask, do you believe that these people who are about to "get reading" never read a book, articles, journals whatever, at all, to pass an exam or for work? I don't think that's true. My interpretation of "well as long as..." was that people meant for their own enjoyment. Interesting to see that people may mean something else.

I don't know how to word this to sound unconfrontational, so you will just have to take me at my word really

And to reiterate, I don't care if people read Oliphant and the like. I read it myself! If that's what you like, have at it 🤷‍♀️

I’m just here to defend CCM. (There are at least 3 covers knocking about now)

I enjoyed EO, we know my view in Crawdads and Matt Haig’s one book I’ve read wasn’t for me. However, I did enjoy all three Fifty Shades of Grey, thought the Da Vinci Code was ok and read Bridgerton, Catherine Cookson and Santa Montefiore with joy.

I don’t agree that these are books people who don’t read read, more they are often the books shops display prominently. Being totally honest, in a bookshop it isn’t often I walk along spines and go ‘oh that looks interesting’ - it the books face up on the table that entice me because I can see their covers. It’s the same way that it’s books in the deals that often grab me so dictates what I read to some degree.

I think reading is about whatever you get out of it. Personally, I do love new words, new worlds, ideas, I love (what I feel) beautiful prose, I enjoy emotional writing. One of my work colleagues reads all the time, almost always thrillers, what she gets from reading is different - she loves to be compelled to turn the pages, trying to work it out, that is a satisfying read. I’d say we both win here.

Short version: if you enjoyed it (the process, the content or whatever) = great stuff

Your husband does read though. He reads for work and has read for academic success. Reading has had value for him. When people say that any reading is better than no reading, I’m assuming that they don’t mean it has to be fiction. Your husband will have acquired and honed vocabulary from whatever he’s read; he will have formulated opinions; learned knowledge of whatever it is he studied; been able to think about said knowledge and perhaps impart it to others using vocabulary he has gained from reading. Of course it matters.

@Pickandmixusername Thanks for not taking offence I struggle with anxiety and find it hard to read people's tone at the best of times so appreciate you were not being confrontational, just genuinely interested. And there's nothing wrong with a good natured debate.

I do think we are coming at this from slightly different angles though. I think you are talking about individuals, whereas I am talking about the population in general. If someone doesn't enjoy reading of course they shouldn't have to do this in their spare time, and I don't think any less of them for this. I guess I'm more saying that anything that encourages people to consider whether reading might be for them can only be a good thing, regardless of where they get the impetus.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one but it was interesting for me to hear your views, and to think a bit more about my own.

Thank you for answering in good faith. I was asking in good faith as several people on here have said similar to you. You were just the most recent one I saw.

I disagree with you (and others) who think reading is of benefit to everyone. I used my husband as an example of a lifelong non reader, and he is genuinely one of the most intelligent people I have ever met.

I love to read and discuss books, which is why I'm on this thread, and have been under several usernames for years. It does not naturally follow that, because I love to read (and to discuss books, even with - especially with - people whose taste differs a lot to my own), that I think everyone benefits from reading. I don't think that.

I've enjoyed reading your views on it. I don't feel I've been confrontational at all, just curious and I am glad I asked and that you answered, despite us not agreeing.

,

@Pickandmixusername I'll have to be honest and say you are coming across as a little confrontational, but perhaps that is just me, and I will answer your questions in good faith.

It doesn't matter to me personally whether specific people are reading, I do however think that encouraging reading in general is a good thing. Reading let's people expand their knowledge, learn about different points of view, enhance their vocabulary, can reduce stress, and so many other benefits. I must admit I'm struggling to understand why someone on a reading thread would not think this is a benefit, but we all see things differently. It's not enforced reading, so if people don't want to read then fair enough. But I stand by my statement that anything that encourages people (and by people I mean people in general) to read more is a good thing, regardless of the type of book.

I think it’s the reading that is the point, rather than reading for pleasure. There are too many people in this world who read nothing more than the Daily Heil or whatever the Fox News equivalent is in the states. And we all know where that has got us.

Sorry, but why? Why is it a good thing? I know it's a thing people say, but why does it matter to you personally, that Alexandra in Balham, for example, has just started reading in her spare time?

I'm not being confrontational for no reason, but I'm trying to discern why so many people say "well if it gets people reading isn't it great?"

Why? Children, yes, they need to learn to read, but imo for adults it is entirely optional. I love to read but my dh has literally never read a book for pleasure. Ever. He reads for work and has a Masters degree but he read to do well in those things, not for fun. I don't care. Why do you care if someone like my husband has no inclination to read? Does it in your eyes make someone less valuable or does it make them less content? What's your theory.

I am truly interested to hear it.

But also feel free to say it isn't my business.

I’m a great believer in ‘there is a book out there for everyone’.

My own pet theory is that I believe that most people can grow to enjoy reading. It's just a case of finding the right book for them, whether that's a sports book, a gothic classic, a mills and boon romance, a space saga, a bestseller, a graphic novel and so on.

@MamaNewtNewt I feel exactly the same - I want to continue with the series but I'm going to put that off to later in the year, or maybe next year.

I agree with people's sentiments about it not mattering what a person reads if it means they're reading. I was known for reading cereals packets at the breakfast table whilst eating. I'm a bit more refined now and don't put cereal boxes on the table anymore 👸

I'm a massive believer in the idea that anything that gets people reading can only be a good thing.

If someone who hasn't really been into reading picks up a book because they heard Reese saying that it was great, and they enjoy it, how can that be a bad thing? They might then decide to give others books a try, and some will stick to the bestsellers, and that's fine, but others will move on to try other things. Which is great. I just can't see how it matters how someone comes to a certain book, or to reading in general.

Yes, I agree with your last sentence. I hope nobody thinks I've never been dismissive of other readers. Books, marketing managers at publishing houses and the choices of authors, yes.

But I honestly don't know why people are saying "as long as it gets people reading more isn't that great?"

Why? Why do you want people who aren't naturally inclined to read to start? Genuine question as I don't get it

I think the issue for me is that some of these books hyped as “must reads” are inevitably a letdown as they have raised expectations so high - tends to be the case for me but very happy for others to read them and enjoy them. I read some absolute rubbish so not judging them in that way but just whether I will find them satisfying.

@BiscuitsBooks I read that last year and absolutely loved it too. I really want to continue the series but I must admit the absolute size of the books is making me put it off a bit.