http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Ce...oks_of_Fiction
what do u think of it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Ce...oks_of_Fiction
what do u think of it
All such lists are useless. They just express someone's opinions. This one is worse than most for a couple of reasons. First it is slanted heavily toward recent novels. I didn't count, but it looked like the last 40 years were heavily overweighted. And Pale Fire of all things is listed as number one. Pale Fire isn't bad, but it isn't all that good; Lolita would have been more reasonable as the top. I wouldn't include Pale Fire in the top thousand, but I don't have a negative opinion of it; it's just that there have been many, many better novels.
Last edited by PeterL; 01-27-2013 at 02:38 PM.
Most top 100 lists of literature are actually top 100 lists of the best 20th century novel, so my only thought is that there are actually a lot of alternatives to the Modern Library list.
"You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus
https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
Feed the Hungry!
what r ur thoughts on the actual books though
Pale Fire is Nabokov's best work by far in my opinion. Lolita was certainly more popular and controversial, yet only a shadow of Pale Fire in terms of quality. But I suppose we should take your opinion as fact, that there have been many, many better novels.Originally Posted by PeterL
I like parts of this list, not so much other parts. The first 3 make a rather delicious meal of diverse stylings, although I would put Ulysses first. Coover and Stein in no way belong in the top 10. I likely would not put Finnegan's Wake in the top 10 either. To be quite honest, like PeterL said, are very subjective, and this list could be rearranged almost top to bottom with each work placed in different spots and have the same validity (minus a few clear frontrunners like Ulysses, Pale Fire, Gravity's Rainbow, Lolita, Beckett's Trilogy, The Nova Trilogy). There are probably another several hundred books that could easily be placed in this company. That being said, these lists function as great resources for choosing what to read. One might pick nearly anything on a list like this and be treated to a great piece of literature....
Last edited by islandclimber; 01-27-2013 at 02:59 PM.
I agree...Pale Fire was certainly, in my opinion, the better novel. And I also think it's more fitting for the spirit of this particular list than Lolita.
As much as I love this list, I also agree that Coover's place so near the top is kind of strange...I wonder if maybe the man who put the list together let his very clear love of Coover cloud his, ahem, "objectivity" a little bit. But, hell, it got me to go out and buy The Public Burning, so I guess it worked. I think Stein deserves her place in the list, though. If we see this list as an alternative history of 20th Century prose, focusing on the avant-garde elements, then Stein is perhaps second only to Mr. Joyce in terms of influence and importance.
As for the complaints that this list is slanted to more recent books - it clearly says that it is a list of top 100 20th century books.
I do agree that this list - which has many incredible books - can be rearranged based on any person's whim - which calls into question the purpose. Then again, if someone was looking for some good 20th century English language literature - I would point them to such a list and encourage them to not pay too much attention to the rankings.
Making this an English only list (which comes out to basically US and UK/Ireland) - is also limiting however.
I wrote a poem on a leaf and it blew away...
I think you're likely right about Stein. I hadn't though of it that way. Her influence was certainly tremendous. I'm just uncertain as to whether the quality was there to be placed alongside Joyce, Beckett, Nabokov, Pynchon. One of the things that surprised me in this list was how far down it this writer placed Infinite Jest. It seemed the type of list that would place DFW's masterpiece quite near the peak. I like the spot given.
The lack of Ishmael Reed's Mumbo Jumbo was kind of disturbing... Especially with the choice he made for Reed. Also, his exclusion of Angela Carter is somewhat confusing, especially considering he only chose about a dozen books by female writers. Certainly The Infernal Desire Machines of Dr Hoffmann or Nights at the Circus should be on this list. Yet it is just a list and one must include certain books and exclude others of equal merit to limit it to 100. A great place to go to begin reading 20th century literature.
Charles. I suppose the English only aspect is a little myopic. Yet, I think it's an interesting method, as it allows one to avoid the quandary of judging translations. Such a difficult task, that. So many of my favourite contemporary writers are non-english though...
Lists aren't necessarily useless, as there are too many books to read and not enough time or money for most.
For example, the largest online bookstores as well as large public or uni libraries have hundreds of thousands of titles available. Give full-time work, the ave. member of the middle class will be able to read around a book every two weeks (and reading includes annotating and writing about what one read), or 24 books a year, or given 50 years of reading, above a thousand books, which is very small compared to what is available, not including those published during those 50 years or even those that have been out of print or not translated, etc.
Given that, feel free to consider these lists, keeping in mind that the more exposure that the critic has to the medium the better.
You are entitled to your opinion, and it might even be Nabokov's best, but if that is the case, then Nabokov doesn't belong in the top 100.
Ugh...sometimes I feel I'm the only one who has a negative opinion of The Sun Also Rises. However, it seems to make a lot of "Greatest Hits" lists.
Yes. And you are entitled to your opinion. I think Pale Fire is certainly one of the best pieces of fiction written in the last 100 years and I would even place it in the top 100 books ever written. And I'm certain there are quite a number of literary critics who would agree with me. Likewise, I'm also certain there are a large number of literary critics who would disagree. I'm also pretty certain if you made a top 100 list I'd likely disagree with a large portion of it. Regardless keep spouting off your personal opinion as though it's fact. I'm sure you'll convince everyone!
In YOUR top 100*
It's all opinions, you obviously aren't as easily swept away by his skill as myself and others.
But I think its a common opinion, when listing the greatest stylistic writers of all time, that Nabokov is mentioned in the top 5-10. So you shouldn't be surprised to see most people include one or more of his works in some of the greatest novels of last century for this reason alone.
Yes, it all a matter of opinion. That's why these 100 best lists are pointless.
In no way did I claim that Nabokov was not a very good writer, but it is my opinion that Pale Fire is not the best novel of the 20th century CE, and I can't take that suggestion as anything other than another mad assertion by Kinbote.
I completely agree with you here. Claiming it as the best novel of the 20th century CE is absurd, though in my opinion suggesting it is outside the top 1000 of this past century is equally absurd. Certainly though, there is absolutely no way Pale Fire belongs above Ulysses or Beckett's Trilogy, and several others. But it is my opinion it could be placed anywhere from about 5-100.
I think these lists can be useful in offering up a selection of authors to read...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote