UK all time bestsellers list

.... who also cooks quick meals! No Lee childs, Patricia Cornwell, John Grisham or George RR Martin. Extraordinary.

Cambridge said:

.... who also cooks quick meals! No Lee childs, Patricia Cornwell, John Grisham or George RR Martin. Extraordinary.

Click to expand...

I quite proud of that list: To Kill A Mockingbird, Chocolat and The Shadow of the Wind. We're quite the literary types after all.

And all the way down at 65 is the first book worth reading.

Meh.
Some of them I like, some of them I don't. I doubt any two people would come up with identical lists.
There is no accounting for taste.

Buffysquirrel said:

And all the way down at 65 is the first book worth reading.

Click to expand...

Er ... #25. Thank you.

Buffysquirrel said:

And all the way down at 65 is the first book worth reading.

Click to expand...

Oooh, controversial. I think there are actually three or four that are worth reading before you get to number 65. and maybe even one or two more than that, just allowing for some I haven't read to be worth reading too (though I have my doubts about that, to be honest).

alexaherself said:

Oooh, controversial. I think there are actually three or four that are worth reading before you get to number 65. and maybe even one or two more than that, just allowing for some I haven't read to be worth reading too (though I have my doubts about that, to be honest).

Click to expand...

I agree. I think the Harry Potter books are worth reading (I absolutely loved them when I was younger), The Very Hungry Caterpillar is awesome, Life of Pi was good and so was the whole His Dark Materials Trilogy. I liked Chocolat and Memoirs of a Geisha as well.

Interesting. Thanks for posting, Elsie.

A few of the titles demonstrate the power of the Richard & Judy book club, I think.

I only come here to be controversial. It's my thing.

*starts munching a caterpillar book*

I find it funny how there's a sharp decline in readership from the first Twilight book to the last Twilight book. Like, huge. Same with the Fifty Shades. Whereas the last HP book sold better than the first, but only by a couple thousand. I guess quality is important in writing.

So much justice.

HarryHoskins said:

Er ... #25. Thank you.

Click to expand...

And the Gruffalo :/

Although - controversial statement time - I'll never understand why A Child Called It is number 40.

Buffysquirrel said:

And all the way down at 65 is the first book worth reading.

Click to expand...

Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time ... HELLO?!

Coop720 said:

Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time ... HELLO?!

Click to expand...

Hello to you too! I didn't like that book much. So sue me .

This list depresses me.

The best thing about this thread is Elsie Tanner's username.

Ey up, chuck!

Buffysquirrel said:

Hello to you too! I didn't like that book much. So sue me .

Click to expand...

That's strange, I thought it was really creative and a brilliant catalyst for my reading when I was younger.

Each to their own It was a kid's book, too

not that horrible of a list..some decent books made it on there, mockingbird, about a boy, harry potter..I bet the US list is worse!

That list is bollocks.

Where's Pratchett?

Coop720 said:

That's strange, I thought it was really creative and a brilliant catalyst for my reading when I was younger.

Click to expand...

Why is it strange that someone else should react differently? I don't find it strange that you enjoyed the book. It sold well and a lot of people have recommended it to me.

mirandashell said:

That list is bollocks.

Where's Pratchett?

Click to expand...

You noticed that too I see.

But its the Grauniad, what did you expect??

Ah. That explains it.

Interesting to note, if the figures are correct, that most of them are quite recent publications (if 'all time' really does mean, 'all time').

Has there been an explosion of reading in the past couple of decades?

Do 21st century best sellers really sell more than, say, 70's and 80's best sellers?

Well, I suppose the chances of the figures being correct are marginally higher than if it were the Daily Mail. The Graudin provides a nice spreadsheet but doesn't seem to source it at all. And yeah, the oldest book being (apparently) from 1989 does make the whole thing a tad suspect.

To be fair, the internet and media are the reason that bestsellers are more recent publications. I wouldn't say that there's an explosion of reading or that anything is suspect. People are just more informed about their purchases and news spreads quickly through social media.