Modern library´s best novels of 20 century

[JoanS]

For those who dont know yet the list.

The Modern Library's 100 Best Novels.

Rank Novel Author
1 ULYSSES James Joyce
2 THE GREAT GATSBY F. Scott Fitzgerald
3 A PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN James Joyce
4 LOLITA Vladimir Nabokov
5 BRAVE NEW WORLD Aldous Huxley
6 THE SOUND AND THE FURY William Faulkner
7 CATCH-22 Joseph Heller
8 DARKNESS AT NOON Arthur Koestler
9 SONS AND LOVERS D.H. Lawrence
10 THE GRAPES OF WRATH John Steinbeck
11 UNDER THE VOLCANO Malcolm Lowry
12 THE WAY OF ALL FLESH Samuel Butler
13 1984 George Orwell
14 I CLAUDIUS Robert Graves
15 TO THE LIGHTHOUSE Virginia Woolf
16 AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY Theodore Dreiser
17 THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER Carson McCullers
18 SLAUGHTERHOUSE-FIVE Kurt Vonnegut
19 INVISIBLE MAN Ralph Ellison
20 NATIVE SON Richard Wright
21 HENDERSON THE RAIN KING Saul Bellow
22 APPOINTMENT IN SAMARRA John O'Hara
23 U.S.A. John Dos Passos
24 WINESBURG, OHIO Sherwood Anderson
25 A PASSAGE TO INDIA E.M. Forster
26 THE WINGS OF THE DOVE Henry James
27 THE AMBASSADORS Henry James
28 TENDER IS THE NIGHT F. Scott Fitzgerald
29 THE STUDS LONIGAN TRILOGY James T. Farrell
30 THE GOOD SOLDIER Ford Madox Ford
31 ANIMAL FARM George Orwell
32 THE GOLDEN BOWL Henry James
33 SISTER CARRIE Theodore Dreiser
34 A HANDFUL OF DUST Evelyn Waugh
35 AS I LAY DYING William Faulkner
36 ALL THE KING'S MEN Robert Penn Warren
37 THE BRIDGE OF SAN LUIS REY Thornton Wilder
38 HOWARDS END E.M. Forster
39 GO TELL IT ON THE MOUNTAIN James Baldwin
40 THE HEART OF THE MATTER Graham Greene
41 LORD OF THE FLIES William Golding
42 DELIVERANCE James Dickey
43 A DANCE TO THE MUSIC OF TIME Anthony Powell
44 POINT COUNTER POINT Aldous Huxley
45 THE SUN ALSO RISES Ernest Hemingway
46 THE SECRET AGENT Joseph Conrad
47 NOSTROMO Joseph Conrad
48 THE RAINBOW D.H. Lawrence
49 WOMEN IN LOVE D.H. Lawrence
50 TROPIC OF CANCER Henry Miller
51 THE NAKED AND THE DEAD Norman Mailer
52 PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT Philip Roth
53 PALE FIRE Vladimir Nabokov
54 LIGHT IN AUGUST William Faulkner
55 ON THE ROAD Jack Kerouac
56 THE MALTESE FALCON Dashiell Hammett
57 PARADE'S END Ford Madox Ford
58 THE AGE OF INNOCENCE Edith Wharton
59 ZULEIKA DOBSON Max Beerbohm
60 THE MOVIEGOER Walker Percy
61 DEATH COMES FOR THE ARCHBISHOP Willa Cather
62 FROM HERE TO ETERNITY James Jones
63 THE WAPSHOT CHRONICLES John Cheever
64 THE CATCHER IN THE RYE J.D. Salinger
65 A CLOCKWORK ORANGE Anthony Burgess
66 OF HUMAN BONDAGE W. Somerset Maugham
67 HEART OF DARKNESS Joseph Conrad
68 MAIN STREET Sinclair Lewis
69 THE HOUSE OF MIRTH Edith Wharton
70 THE ALEXANDRIA QUARTET Lawrence Durell
71 A HIGH WIND IN JAMAICA Richard Hughes
72 A HOUSE FOR MR BISWAS V.S. Naipaul
73 THE DAY OF THE LOCUST Nathanael West
74 A FAREWELL TO ARMS Ernest Hemingway
75 SCOOP Evelyn Waugh
76 THE PRIME OF MISS JEAN BRODIE Muriel Spark
77 FINNEGANS WAKE James Joyce
78 KIM Rudyard Kipling
79 A ROOM WITH A VIEW E.M. Forster
80 BRIDESHEAD REVISITED Evelyn Waugh
81 THE ADVENTURES OF AUGIE MARCH Saul Bellow
82 ANGLE OF REPOSE Wallace Stegner
83 A BEND IN THE RIVER V.S. Naipaul
84 THE DEATH OF THE HEART Elizabeth Bowen
85 LORD JIM Joseph Conrad
86 RAGTIME E.L. Doctorow
87 THE OLD WIVES' TALE Arnold Bennett
88 THE CALL OF THE WILD Jack London
89 LOVING Henry Green
90 MIDNIGHT'S CHILDREN Salman Rushdie
91 TOBACCO ROAD Erskine Caldwell
92 IRONWEED William Kennedy
93 THE MAGUS John Fowles
94 WIDE SARGASSO SEA Jean Rhys
95 UNDER THE NET Iris Murdoch
96 SOPHIE'S CHOICE William Styron
97 THE SHELTERING SKY Paul Bowles
98 THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE James M. Cain
99 THE GINGER MAN J.P. Donleavy
100 THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS Booth Tarkington

[chasestalling]

where's proust?

[Lambert]

where's proust?

He got bumped off the list because of literary populism.:flare:

Another annoying thing about this list: Why are Salinger and Kerouac there? Critical opinion on those authors has changed drastically in the last few years.

And another annoying thing about this list: Where's William Gaddis?
Isn't his work vital in understanding the origin of most contemporary literature? It's a crime to have left him out.

[Virgil]

where's proust?

Those are all novels written in English. The title should be best 20th Century Novels Written in English.

[JoanS]

thanks Virgil, i ve forgotten write it..

[PeterL]

I saw that list before, and I was surprised. I am still surprised. Many of the others also are good but not among the top 100. And a few on the list aren't very good at all. For example, On the Road has some good features, but it isn't one of the 100 best novels of the 20th cen.

[ivette]

I think Hermann Hesse should definitely be on the list... :)

[jon1jt]

I saw that list before, and I was surprised. I am still surprised. Many of the others also are good but not among the top 100. And a few on the list aren't very good at all. For example, On the Road has some good features, but it isn't one of the 100 best novels of the 20th cen.

Jack Kerouac's Road shows up at the 55 spot on this list, and #6 on the ALL TIME BEST SELLING PENGUIN BOOKS. you say it has only, "some good features." not a top 100, huh? :lol: read it again. or maybe you stopped dreaming long ago.

yet, nobody calls out Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath on this list?? and they have Tropic of Cancer at 50???? :alien: okay, ssurrrreeee.

[PeterL]

Jack Kerouac's Road shows up at the 55 spot on this list, and #6 on the ALL TIME BEST SELLING PENGUIN BOOKS. you say it has only, "some good features." not a top 100, huh? :lol: read it again. or maybe you stopped dreaming long ago.

On the Road is on the list because it was influential to a generation. The beatniks and hippies drew inspiration from it, but the narrative wasn't very good, and the writing was mediocre. Maybe I will read it again. It isn't a sort of book that I like. It should be experienced rather than read about.

[jon1jt]

On the Road is on the list because it was influential to a generation. The beatniks and hippies drew inspiration from it, but the narrative wasn't very good, and the writing was mediocre. Maybe I will read it again. It isn't a sort of book that I like. It should be experienced rather than read about.

well i'm happy to hear that you'll consider reading On the Road again. :D as far as your point aobut experiencing that book rather than reading it, i have to disagree with you. can't we say that for many great books? i've had my own on the roads and some still to accomplish. places to see, people to meet. there's a whole world out there. but that shouldn't detract from the exileration of reading Sal Paradise and Dean Moriarty's experience, who were just two guys searching for something. aren't we all searching in a way, peter? ;)

[Lambert]

well i'm happy to hear that you'll consider reading On the Road again. :D as far as your point aobut experiencing that book rather than reading it, i have to disagree with you. can't we say that for many great books? i've had my own on the roads and some still to accomplish. places to see, people to meet. there's a whole world out there. but that shouldn't detract from the exileration of reading Sal Paradise and Dean Moriarty's experience, who were just two guys searching for something. aren't we all searching in a way, peter? ;)

I'm think you're a little too overwhelmed by gushy idealism to see how bad Kerouac’s prose is. Frankly, it’s the dullest, flattest, most one-dimensional prose I've ever had the misfortune come across. Bored me to tears that book.

PeterL: Don't bother reading Kerouac. It's all hype and no substance. Teenage naivety gone haywire...

[PeterL]

well i'm happy to hear that you'll consider reading On the Road again. :D as far as your point aobut experiencing that book rather than reading it, i have to disagree with you. can't we say that for many great books? i've had my own on the roads and some still to accomplish. places to see, people to meet. there's a whole world out there. but that shouldn't detract from the exileration of reading Sal Paradise and Dean Moriarty's experience, who were just two guys searching for something. aren't we all searching in a way, peter? ;)

It is my opinion that there are many books that shouldn't have been written, because they seek to convey experiences, rather than ideas, and the experiences that they seek to convey are readily available in the real world. Another such book is Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Repair Contrast those with The Lord of the Rings or Stranger in a Strange Land, or Foucault's Pendulum, all of which are more about abstract ideas than about day-to-day experiences. It isn't easy to hitchike around the country any more, but people do drive randomly around, drink cheap wine, smoke pot, and hang out with interesting characters. You may prefer reading about such experiences, but I preferred engaging in them.

[Demian]

Yeah, what about Hesse, Nikos K., Graham Greene? (Was he not on the list?) You can't get around to every body, but I think that these three have had a more profound influence on their contemporaries and audiences than at least half of these writers!

[jon1jt]

I'm think you're a little too overwhelmed by gushy idealism to see how bad Kerouac’s prose is. Frankly, it’s the dullest, flattest, most one-dimensional prose I've ever had the misfortune come across. Bored me to tears that book.


you can call me a gushy idealist, i take that as a compliment. thank you. :nod:

perhaps the world's become too small for you, or maybe you're one of those modern hipster types who backpacked across Europe on borrowed Pell Grant money (or your parents' credit cards) trailing the scent of every spot deemed exotic by Outsider Magazine or cool friends. i'm waiting for some three-dimensional prose to be published, Lam, let me know i'll be sure to go out and buy it. :D


PeterL: Don't bother reading Kerouac. It's all hype and no substance. Teenage naivety gone haywire...

Teen naivety gone haywire?? (oh boy) kerouac went on those road trips when he was in his late 20's and wrote about them at 32. the book was published six years later.

for some reason i don't think you read the book, or even the intro. :)

[stlukesguild]

I'm think you're a little too overwhelmed by gushy idealism to see how bad Kerouac’s prose is. Frankly, it’s the dullest, flattest, most one-dimensional prose I've ever had the misfortune come across. Bored me to tears that book.

PeterL: Don't bother reading Kerouac. It's all hype and no substance. Teenage naivety gone haywire...

Hey! I'm usually the one who says things like that!:lol: And you can throw Anne Sexton and Sylvia Plath in there as well (yes, yes... I know, poets not novelists... but Gaaack!)

[jon1jt]

I'm think you're a little too overwhelmed by gushy idealism to see how bad Kerouac’s prose is. Frankly, it’s the dullest, flattest, most one-dimensional prose I've ever had the misfortune come across. Bored me to tears that book.

PeterL: Don't bother reading Kerouac. It's all hype and no substance. Teenage naivety gone haywire...

Hey! I'm usually the one who says things like that!:lol: And you can throw Anne Sexton and Sylvia Plath in there as well (yes, yes... I know, poets not novelists... but Gaaack!)


"poets not novelists..." explain that one to me, luke. pardon, i'm confused.

[Lambert]

Teen naivety gone haywire?? (oh boy) kerouac went on those road trips when he was in his late 20's and wrote about them at 32. the book was published six years later.

for some reason i don't think you read the book, or even the intro. :)


I thought "All hype and no substance" part would have led you to belive I was refering to the people who like Kerouac's work, not Kerouac himself, but obviously you were desperate to get a dig in somewhere weren't you. I'm perfectly aware of Kerouac's background thank you very much. {edit}

perhaps the world's become too small for you

I'm not sure if the earth's sphereical width has decreased in any significant way but I'm pretty confident that Jack Kerouac is still as dreadful a writer as he'll always be.

[JBI]

The list is very limited since it is only English books, most of which are centered around America instead of including the whole English speaking world.

Most of the books on that list I would say are important, and it is an extremely difficult job to subjectively draw the line between top 100 worthy and not. There were just too many good books, and important books to have covered them all.

The list from what I see deals a lot with influence rather than "good read". I'm not convinced that one could call Ulysses the best book of the 20th century, though of course it deserves its spot in the canon simply because of influence.

This list, as I have mentioned, is subjective, though contains a nice starting place for anyone trying to read on 20th century English literature. (though I wouldn't recommend starting at the top of the list with Joyce, otherwise you probably won't get much further for a while).

[Lambert]

The list from what I see deals a lot with influence rather than "good read". I'm not convinced that one could call Ulysses the best book of the 20th century, though of course it deserves its spot in the canon simply because of influence.

Ulysses not an enjoyable read?

Tut tut tut... I sense there's some prejudiced philistines here....

[Virgil]

I saw that list before, and I was surprised. I am still surprised. Many of the others also are good but not among the top 100. And a few on the list aren't very good at all. For example, On the Road has some good features, but it isn't one of the 100 best novels of the 20th cen.

Let me throw my two cents in on On the Road. I pretty much agree with Peter. It's a fun read, an enjoyable book, but I wouldn't put it on the top 100. It's not a great novel; it's a good novel.

As I look over the list, wow there are some weird selections. Studs Lonigan, another fun read, but number 29. No way. Seems like whoever put that list together was joyce heavy also. Portrait of the Artist at number three?


Jack Kerouac's Road shows up at the 55 spot on this list, and #6 on the ALL TIME BEST SELLING PENGUIN BOOKS. you say it has only, "some good features." not a top 100, huh? :lol: read it again. or maybe you stopped dreaming long ago.

yet, nobody calls out Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath on this list?? and they have Tropic of Cancer at 50???? :alien: okay, ssurrrreeee.

The Grapes of Wrath came in at number ten. You must have missed it. A little over rated at number ten in my opinion.

[Riesa]

I thought "All hype and no substance" part would have led you to belive I was refering to the people who like Kerouac's work, not Kerouac himself, but obviously you were desperate to get a dig in somewhere weren't you. I'm perfectly aware of Kerouac's background thank you very much. {edit}


I'm not sure if the earth's sphereical width has decreased in any significant way but I'm pretty confident that Jack Kerouac is still as dreadful a writer as he'll always be.



Reading Kerouac influenced me in so many ways, opened my ears to jazz and poetry, encouraged me to seek out people that were interesting. It's fun to read Kerouac, -buddha.

{edit}

Ulysses is a snore.

[Scheherazade]

PeterL: Don't bother reading Kerouac. It's all hype and no substance. Teenage naivety gone haywire...Amen to that! :D
Teen naivety gone haywire?? (oh boy) kerouac went on those road trips when he was in his late 20's and wrote about them at 32. the book was published six years later. Maybe it is just that... Even though they are 'grown up' people (ie people described in the Road), they hardly act like so.
"poets not novelists..." explain that one to me, luke. pardon, i'm confused.I think what SLG meant was that even though Anne Sexton and Sylvia Plath are poets -not novelists- (because we are discussing novelists in this thread), he would include them into the list of 'overrated' literary figures.

What upsets me most is that I have read only 25 of the books listed here. :-/

[Virgil]

Hmm, I've only read thirty five. There are a few on there that I've been wanting to read.

[stlukesguild]

The list is very limited since it is only English books, most of which are centered around America instead of including the whole English speaking world.

Beside Britain and the US what other major source of English-language literature do you feel is overlooked? Canada? Australia? Which authors? If this list is at limited it is limited by the fact that it ignores non-English language literature and avoids the last 25 years or so of the century... which makes sense considering the nearness of these works historically.

Most of the books on that list I would say are important, and it is an extremely difficult job to subjectively draw the line between top 100 worthy and not. There were just too many good books, and important books to have covered them all. The list from what I see deals a lot with influence rather than "good read". I'm not convinced that one could call Ulysses the best book of the 20th century, though of course it deserves its spot in the canon simply because of influence.

So how do we definine "great literature"? The mass public seems to feel that Harry Potter was a "good read" and it certainly has had far more influence upon the world of publishing and writing than almost any book on this list... does that make it a "great book?" I would argue that influence on later writers of note and lasting power are something to be considered when selecting such a list... although perhaps not when selecting one's personal favorites. By the way... as one of those who appreciates the challenges of a book like Ulysses I certainly have no problem calling it a "good read". Is it the best book... or rather the best novel of the 20th century? Well I might lean toward Proust and a few others before Joyce. Is it the greatest English-language novel of the 20th century? Again... debatable... but I'd have a hard time coming up with a clear alternative. You?

[Janine]

Who make up this list, anyway? Seems very limited to me. I can think of many fine novelists and novels not included. Is it a library list? I have read many of the books but others I have not even heard of. I did not count how many I read but I will.

[JBI]

Ulysses not an enjoyable read?

Tut tut tut... I sense there's some prejudiced philistines here....

Don't get me wrong; I have read Dubliners, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, and Ulysses.

I didn't say they weren't enjoyable, I just said that I'm not sure you could call it the best book of the 20th century. Personally I thought A Portrait was the best book of the 20th century, but even that is a little too narrow. Lets face it, Ulysses's appeal is far too narrow for the book to be enjoyed by a majority of people.

[stlukesguild]

As I look over the list, wow there are some weird selections. Studs Lonigan, another fun read, but number 29. No way. Seems like whoever put that list together was joyce heavy also. Portrait of the Artist at number three?

I quite agree. There are any number of other books that I'd place before Portrait of the Artist...[/I. Perhaps one might start with Joyce's own [I]Finnegan's Wake? And where is Beckett's Murphy or the trilogy (Malloy, Malone Dies, The Unnameable)? And Studs Lonigan before As I Lay Dying? Blasphemy!:flare: And where is Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian? And Gore Vidal? Myra Breckenridge! Walter Abish? Thomas Wolfe (not Tom Wolfe)?

Ulysses's appeal is far too narrow for the book to be enjoyed by a majority of people.

The appeal to the majority of people...? Is that a standard by which art ought to be measured?

[Scheherazade]

I am too lazy to count right now but are there more American novels in the list than British? Also, which one is the most recently written book in the list? I don't think the last couple of decades of the 20th century is well represented here.

(Ain't it fun picking lists like this apart! :D)

[andave_ya]

LOL, Scher and Virg. Twenty-five and thirty-five? I've read a grand total of four.

[Virgil]

LOL, Scher and Virg. Twenty-five and thirty-five? I've read a grand total of four.

Well, I've had a few more years extra to read. :p

[jon1jt]

the fact of the matter is kerouac's Road is NUMBER SIX ON THE ALL-TIME BEST SELLING PENGUIN LIST. Homer's Illiad is #4. i agree with you virge about Grapes of Wrath, that was my point.

there were similar infantile comments which followed the publication of Road, and from the comments i've read so far, i seriously question whether any of you actually read the book cover to cover. if you have, let's move past generalizations and sad platitudes o' literary critics.

scher: where exactly do they "hardly act grown up?"

[papayahed]

Can't be much of a list I've only read 11 books on the list.

[Virgil]

the fact of the matter is kerouac's Road is NUMBER SIX ON THE ALL-TIME BEST SELLING PENGUIN LIST. Homer's Illiad is #4. i agree with you virge about Grapes of Wrath, that was my point.


Oh I'm sorry. I missunderstood. I thought you were lamenting that it wasn't on the list.

Here's a better list of all novels. I could also quibble with many on this list, but I prefer it over the other one.



Rank Title of Great Novel Year Author Religious Affiliation of Author
1 Don Quixote 1605, 1630 Miguel de Cervantes Catholic
2 War and Peace 1869 Leo Tolstoy Russian Orthodox
3 Ulysses 1922 James Joyce Catholic (lapsed)
4 In Search of Lost Time 1913-27 Marcel Proust Jewish Catholic
5 The Brothers Karamazov 1880 Feodor Dostoevsky Russian Orthodox
6 Moby-Dick 1851 Herman Melville Transcendentalist
7 Madame Bovary 1857 Gustave Flaubert Catholic
8 Middlemarch 1871-72 George Eliot Anglican; agnostic
9 The Magic Mountain 1924 Thomas Mann Lutheran
10 The Tale of Genji 11th Century Murasaki Shikibu Buddhist/Shinto culture
11 Emma 1816 Jane Austen Anglican
12 Bleak House 1852-53 Charles Dickens Anglican
13 Anna Karenina 1877 Leo Tolstoy Russian Orthodox
14 Adventures of Huckleberry Finn 1884 Mark Twain Presbyterian
15 Tom Jones 1749 Henry Fielding
16 Great Expectations 1860-61 Charles Dickens Anglican
17 Absalom, Absalom! 1936 William Faulkner Presbyterian
18 The Ambassadors 1903 Henry James Anglican
19 One Hundred Years of Solitude 1967 Gabriel Garcia Marquez Catholic
20 The Great Gatsby 1925 F. Scott Fitzgerald Catholic
21 To The Lighthouse 1927 Virginia Woolf Neo-pagan
22 Crime and Punishment 1866 Feodor Dostoevsky Russian Orthodox
23 The Sound and the Fury 1929 William Faulkner Presbyterian
24 Vanity Fair 1847-48 William Makepeace Thackeray
25 Invisible Man 1952 Ralph Ellison
26 Finnegans Wake 1939 James Joyce Catholic (lapsed)
27 The Man Without Qualities 1930-43 Robert Musil Catholic
28 Gravity's Rainbow 1973 Thomas Pynchon Catholic; agnostic
29 The Portrait of a Lady 1881 Henry James Anglican
30 Women in Love 1920 D. H. Lawrence
31 The Red and the Black 1830 Stendhal Catholic
32 Tristram Shandy 1760-67 Laurence Sterne Anglican (Church of Ireland clergyman)
33 Dead Souls 1842 Nikolai Gogol Russian Orthodox
34 Tess of the D'Urbervilles 1891 Thomas Hardy
35 Buddenbrooks 1901 Thomas Mann Lutheran
36 Le Pere Goriot 1835 Honore de Balzac Catholic
37 A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man 1916 James Joyce Catholic (lapsed)
38 Wuthering Heights 1847 Emily Bronte Anglican
39 The Tin Drum 1959 Gunter Grass Catholic
40 Molloy; Malone Dies; The Unnamable 1951-53 Samuel Beckett Church of Ireland (Anglican)
41 Pride and Prejudice 1813 Jane Austen Anglican
42 The Scarlet Letter 1850 Nathaniel Hawthorne Transcendentalist
43 Fathers and Sons 1862 Ivan Turgenev Russian Orthodox; agnostic
44 Nostromo 1904 Joseph Conrad Catholic; atheist
45 Beloved 1987 Toni Morrison
46 An American Tragedy 1925 Theodore Dreiser Catholic; Congregationalist; Chrisitan Science
47 Lolita 1955 Vladimir Nabokov Russian Orthodox
48 The Golden Notebook 1962 Doris Lessing
49 Clarissa 1747-48 Samuel Richardson
50 Dream of the Red Chamber 1791 Cao Xueqin
51 The Trial 1925 Franz Kafka Jewish
52 Jane Eyre 1847 Charlotte Bronte Anglican
53 The Red Badge of Courage 1895 Stephen Crane Methodist
54 The Grapes of Wrath 1939 John Steinbeck Episcopalian
55 Petersburg 1916/1922 Andrey Bely Russian Orthodox; Theosophy; Spiritualism
56 Things Fall Apart 1958 Chinue Achebe
57 The Princess of Cleves 1678 Madame de Lafayette
58 The Stranger 1942 Albert Camus Catholic; Existentialism
59 My Antonia 1918 Willa Cather Episcopalian
60 The Counterfeiters 1926 Andre Gide
61 The Age of Innocence 1920 Edith Wharton
62 The Good Soldier 1915 Ford Madox Ford Catholic; agnostic
63 The Awakening 1899 Kate Chopin Catholic
64 A Passage to India 1924 E. M. Forster
65 Herzog 1964 Saul Bellow Orthodox Jew (lapsed); Anthroposophist
66 Germinal 1855 Emile Zola Catholic
67 Call It Sleep 1934 Henry Roth Jewish
68 U.S.A. Trilogy 1930-38 John Dos Passos Catholic
69 Hunger 1890 Knut Hamsun
70 Berlin Alexanderplatz 1929 Alfred Doblin Catholic
71 Cities of Salt 1984-89 'Abd al-Rahman Munif
72 The Death of Artemio Cruz 1962 Carlos Fuentes Catholic
73 A Farewell to Arms 1929 Ernest Hemingway Catholic
74 Brideshead Revisited 1945 Evelyn Waugh Catholic
75 The Last Chronicle of Barset 1866-67 Anthony Trollope Anglican
76 The Pickwick Papers 1836-67 Charles Dickens Anglican
77 Robinson Crusoe 1719 Daniel Defoe Protestant Dissenter (Presbyterian)
78 The Sorrows of Young Werther 1774 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Deist
79 Candide 1759 Voltaire raised in Jansenism; later Deist
80 Native Son 1940 Richard Wright Seventh-day Adventist; Communist
81 Under the Volcano 1947 Malcolm Lowry Methodist; Anglican; agnostic
82 Oblomov 1859 Ivan Goncharov
83 Their Eyes Were Watching God 1937 Zora Neale Hurston
84 Waverley 1814 Sir Walter Scott Anglican
85 Snow Country 1937, 1948 Kawabata Yasunari
86 Nineteen Eighty-Four 1949 George Orwell Anglican
87 The Betrothed 1827, 1840 Alessandro Manzoni Catholic
88 The Last of the Mohicans 1826 James Fenimore Cooper Episcopalian
89 Uncle Tom's Cabin 1852 Harriet Beecher Stowe Episcopalian; Congregationalist
90 Les Miserables 1862 Victor Hugo Catholic
91 On the Road 1957 Jack Kerouac Catholic; Buddhism
92 Frankenstein 1818 Mary Shelley
93 The Leopard 1958 Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa Catholic
94 The Catcher in the Rye 1951 J.D. Salinger Jewish Catholic; Scientologist
95 The Woman in White 1860 Wilkie Collins
96 The Good Soldier Svejk 1921-23 Jaroslav Hasek Catholic
97 Dracula 1897 Bram Stoker Church of Ireland (Anglican)
98 The Three Musketeers 1844 Alexandre Dumas agnostic; Catholic
99 The Hound of Baskervilles 1902 Arthur Conan Doyle Catholic; Spiritualist
100 Gone with the Wind 1936 Margaret Mitchell Catholic


http://www.adherents.com/people/100_novel.html

[jon1jt]

I thought "All hype and no substance" part would have led you to belive I was refering to the people who like Kerouac's work, not Kerouac himself, but obviously you were desperate to get a dig in somewhere weren't you. I'm perfectly aware of Kerouac's background thank you very much. {edit}


I'm not sure if the earth's sphereical width has decreased in any significant way but I'm pretty confident that Jack Kerouac is still as dreadful a writer as he'll always be.


i actually thought you were directing your comment to the characters in Road. they should have left your remarks up there about me, which are all true, yes! and it comes with great responsibility. :)

now chill out Lamvert, i know that you know your Kerouac, don't worry, i know you're well read and smart too.

[Quark]

Some interesting things



68 MAIN STREET Sinclair Lewis


But not Babbit?



58 THE AGE OF INNOCENCE Edith Wharton
69 THE HOUSE OF MIRTH Edith Wharton


Same author and similar ideas in both of them; couldn't we pick one?



7 CATCH-22 Joseph Heller

The book was amusing and had its moments, but seventh? This is a greater story than The Heart of Darkness or Sons and Lovers?


5 BRAVE NEW WORLD Aldous Huxley

And Brave New World above The Sound and the Fury?

[Scheherazade]

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_novel.htmlYep, much better! (Read 36 of them! :D)

[stlukesguild]

the fact of the matter is kerouac's Road is NUMBER SIX ON THE ALL-TIME BEST SELLING PENGUIN LIST. Homer's Illiad is #4.

So Kerouac is only slightly less of a writer than Homer? Is that your point or am I missing something here? What does popularity have to do in any way with the quality of a work of art? Thomas Kinkade sold far more paintings than Rembrandt... so he's a better painter? A couple 100-million people bought Jonathan Livingston Seagull (and none of them will admit to it now:lol:) so its a great novel?

from the comments i've read so far, i seriously question whether any of you actually read the book cover to cover. if you have, let's move past generalizations and sad platitudes o' literary critics.

So if we find Kerouac to be something of a second-rate writer... perhaps good but not great... then we obviously haven't read him or we need to read him again and again until (in a sort of Pavlovian manner) we begin to imagine he actually is brilliant? Sorry... if I want gushing I'll take Walt Whitman.

[Quark]

the fact of the matter is kerouac's Road is NUMBER SIX ON THE ALL-TIME BEST SELLING PENGUIN LIST. Homer's Illiad is #4.

So Kerouac is only slightly less of a writer than Homer? Is that your point or am I missing something here? What does popularity have to do in any way with the quality of a work of art? Thomas Kinkade sold far more paintings than Rembrandt... so he's a better painter? A couple 100-million people bought Jonathan Livingston Seagull (and none of them will admit to it now:lol:) so its a great novel?

from the comments i've read so far, i seriously question whether any of you actually read the book cover to cover. if you have, let's move past generalizations and sad platitudes o' literary critics.

So if we find Kerouac to be something of a second-rate writer... perhaps good but not great... then we obviously haven't read him or we need to read him again and again until (in a sort of Pavlovian manner) we begin to imagine he actually is brilliant? Sorry... if I want gushing I'll take Walt Whitman.


This is an interesting discussion, and it deserves its own thread. Here you go,

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=438726#post438726

[stlukesguild]

Actually here is a nice source for book lists:

http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/greatbks.html

I especially like Harold Bloom's Western Canon, which is certainly one of the most comprehensive lists, but I also like the 100 Most Influential Books and others.

[jon1jt]

So Kerouac is only slightly less of a writer than Homer? Is that your point or am I missing something here?

that's quite correct. :)


What does popularity have to do in any way with the quality of a work of art?

the book has demonstrated that it has staying power, founding a generation and inspiring the next. could harry potter do that? :lol: .


Thomas Kinkade sold far more paintings than Rembrandt... so he's a better painter? A couple 100-million people bought Jonathan Livingston Seagull (and none of them will admit to it now:lol:) so its a great novel?

i admit it. jonathan livingston seagull is a good book (using Virgil's criteria)---better than that smut they're buying in the new age section. again, i think you can't deny "staying power" as the criteria for determining greatness, would you luke?



So if we find Kerouac to be something of a second-rate writer... perhaps good but not great... then we obviously haven't read him or we need to read him again and again until (in a sort of Pavlovian manner) we begin to imagine he actually is brilliant? Sorry... if I want gushing I'll take Walt Whitman.

would this be an admission that you haven't read all of On the Road? it's okay, Luke, you can admit it. :D

i imagine you will be very upset when the Road movie comes out soon. :lol:

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r

Please do not resort to inflammatory comments.

Such posts will be deleted with or without any further warning.

[stlukesguild]

So Kerouac is only slightly less of a writer than Homer? Is that your point or am I missing something here?

that's quite correct.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Ooops... Excuse my laughter. Homer is one of the greatest writers who ever lived... Only figures such as Dante, Shakespeare, Virgil, Goethe, Montaigne, Tolstoy, and a few others are in anyway as great authors or as central to our culture as Homer. Comparing Kerouac to Homer is akin to comparing the Monkees to Beethoven. By the way... even your premise as to Kerouac's relative position as proved by book sales is grossly flawed. Penguin's 4th best selling author is Homer... but this would only count the translation of Homer owned by Penguin books (that of Robert Fagles) and would ignore the dozens of other English translations including Fitzgerald's, Mandelbaum's... even Dryden's... to say nothing of all the translations into French, Spanish, German, Italian and evry other conceivable language.

What does popularity have to do in any way with the quality of a work of art?

the book has demonstrated that it has staying power, founding a generation and inspiring the next. could harry potter do that?

"Staying power"? What exactly are we talking about here? 50 years? The Monkees (to use them again) have just as much staying power. I hear them all the time on the classic rock stations. Somebody keeps requesting their songs. We are comparing this to Homer... and 3000 years of "staying power"? 50 years in terms of art is nothing. People are still talking about Jackson Pollack and even Picasso as if they were contemporary artists. Writers like Barth and Pynchon (already old men) are still digesting the lessons from Joyce.

Thomas Kinkade sold far more paintings than Rembrandt... so he's a better painter? A couple 100-million people bought Jonathan Livingston Seagull (and none of them will admit to it now) so its a great novel?

i admit it. jonathan livingston seagull is a great book---

Well, at least I know where you're coming from here.:rolleyes:

better than that smut they're buying in the new age section.

Well... that's enough to make me run out and buy a few copies for myself.:lol:

again, i think you can't deny "staying power" as the criteria for determining greatness, would you luke?

Once again... defining a generation as proof of "staying power" is certainly stretching the concept. Yes, "staying power" is one of the standards by which art is judged. I would suggest that art is measured by three distinct groups:

1. The Art Experts
2. Subsequent Artists
3. The Art Lovers.

The opinions of the general public or the masses are largely irrelevant in the long term because their opinions change greatly. What was a phenomenon today (Harry Potter, Jonathan Livingston Seagul) becomes a forgotten embarrassment a generation or two (or less) down the road. It should also be noted that for the most part the general public does not invest a great deal of time, thought, effort, or money into art/literature.

My first group... the art experts... is often dismissed by those who take an anti-intellectual prejudice. But who exactly make up the art experts with regard to literature? I would suggest that they include literary critics, literary historians, publishers, editors, literary and language teachers/professors, bibliophiles, etc... In other words, persons who have invested a good deal of time, effort, thought and even money into the field. These are the people who decide what continues to be published... what is important enough to teach in high-school and college curricula.

In tandem with this first group we have the subsequent artists/authors. Art is always a dialog with reality... but it is also a dialog with one's predecessors. Dickinson continued to learn from Milton centuries after the fact. Walt Whitman was profoundly inspired by the King James Bible. Thomas Pynchon and John Barth continue to build upon the ideas of Joyce. Brahms built upon Beethoven. Picasso learnt greatly from El Greco and Velazquez. I somehow doubt that there are any authors of any real importance who are currently building upon what they gleaned from Jack Kerouac.

Finally, we have the art lovers. I say art lovers rather than the masses because only a limited number of people are truly driven to give much thought one way or another about literature outside an occasional bit of entertainment... perhaps a murder mystery or romance novel. Some writers continue to retain a status far above what is warranted by their critical reputation or impact upon others. Among these we might include Alexander Dumas (Three Musketeers), Arthur Conan Doyle, and some few others. In these few cases the public maintains an admiration for so long that one almost assumes that the critics and artists might just be wrong. Perhaps Puccini or Rachmaninov were greater than Stravinsky (Actually, I prefer them). The fact that On the Road (like Catcher in the Rye) remains a popular cult classic 50 years later with adolescents making their first forays into serious reading can in no way be imagined as proof of its brilliance.

But I will give Kerouac another go... when you give Finnegan's Wake another reading.:lol:

[Virgil]

Yep, much better! (Read 36 of them! :D)

I did better here too. I've 44 of these.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Ooops... Excuse my laughter. Homer is one of the greatest writers who ever lived... Only figures such as Dante, Shakespeare, Virgil, Goethe, Montaigne, Tolstoy, and a few others are in anyway as great authors or as central to our culture as Homer. Comparing Kerouac to Homer is akin to comparing the Monkees to Beethoven.

:lol: :lol: :lol: That had me laughing out loud. But you know, I still like the Monkeys. While "Now I'm a Believer" is not Beethoven's Nineth, it has its charm, especially since it reminds me of a girl I used to date. ;) And I remember liking Jonathan Livingston Seagull. :D Of course, I was fourteen. :p

[Quark]

I did better here too. I've 44 of these.

Virgil, I like your list better, too--it's much more flattering to me. You top 100 has a lot more of the 19th century classics that I'm more familiar with. Thanks for making me feel better--I go from 20 to 40 when I switch lists.

I also like that they included Oblamov in their list. It's been underrated in the past.

[papayahed]

Virgie, your list weirds me out, why does it list the authors religious affiliation? (Even though I got 19 of those)

We should do our own list.....

[Virgil]

Virgie, your list weirds me out, why does it list the authors religious affiliation? (Even though I got 19 of those)

I don't know. I wondered the same thing. I actually own the book where that list came from (the author expounds on his reasoning on his selection method in the book) and even there he doesn't really discuss religion.

[Quark]

Virgie, your list weirds me out, why does it list the authors religious affiliation? (Even though I got 19 of those)

I didn't even notice. That's hilarious. Which religion wins out on the list?

[jon1jt]

again, you're espousing a great deal of platitudes without once directing your attention to Kerouac's BOOK, the content. show me something, Luke, is that all you got, platitudes?? you make this one easy for me. i can take your comments and post them anywhere in a discussion on a book criticism. you can fool some of the people some of the time, just not today. :D


So Kerouac is only slightly less of a writer than Homer? Is that your point or am I missing something here?

lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Ooops... Excuse my laughter. Homer is one of the greatest writers who ever lived

is that your opinion or what your teachers told you in school? :p homer is okay, :eek: oh my did i actually just say that about god?!! :lol: i've read the Iliad twice and attended a couple seminar courses on him back in college. not long ago i listened to the 12 lecture set by the teaching company on the subject, and my opinion of him is unchanged. at one time, perhaps, the Iliad was revered by Greeks as the book, but even Plato and others began to question the benefits of Homer's "virtues," unless of course you're an English professor, in which case Plato is just a ranting totalitarian lunatic! argh!

more to the point: consider in your book count that the majority of Homer's books are purchased in academia whereas kerouac is hardly read and even villified there, so i'd say kerouac is not doing so poorly at his #6 spot. it also tells me that On The Road is appealing to a different kind of reader. this quotidian appeal is well documented dating back to its publication.

some random quotes of both kerouac and homer:

Kerouac:
'Goodbye Cody - your lips in your moments of self-possessed thought & new found responsible goodness are as silent, make as least a noise, and mystify with sense in nature, like the light of an automobile reflecting from the shiny silverpaint of a sidewalk tank this very instant, as silent & all this, as a bird crossing the dawn in search of the mountain cross & the sea beyond the city at the end of the land. Adios, you who watched the sun go down, at the rail, by my side, smiling - Adios, King.' (Visions Of Cody)

Homer:
“There is a sacredness in tears. They are not the mark of weakness, but of power. They speak more eloquently than ten thousand tongues. They are messengers of overwhelming grief...and unspeakable love.”

Kerouac:
... would never understand me because I like too many things and get all confused and hung-up running from one falling star to another till I drop. This is the night, what it does to you. I had nothing to offer anybody except my own confusion...

homer:
Chiefs who no more in bloody fights engage,
But, wise through time, and narrative with age,
In summer-days like grasshoppers rejoice,
A bloodless race, that send a feeble voice.

i can go on quoting, but the outcome is the same: kerouac's writing is not so bad note for note. i realize it's comparing apples and oranges, but the repeated claim that kerouac's prose is unintelligible or too abstract does not hold up as it's no less readable than homer's, therein supporting my earlier point that most kerouac critics in this forum have likely never finished one of his books. this is an issue that plagues keroauc following the Road publication. i recommend the second book of Kerouac letters and Empty Phantoms, a comprehensive compiliation of critical articles/news stories from 1957 to 1990s.



[... Only figures such as Dante, Shakespeare, Virgil, Goethe, Montaigne, Tolstoy,

Tolstoy - War & Peace :yawnb:
Anna Karenina::yawnb: (i read both)
Goethe - :yawnb: (read him)
Montaigne's essays.:banana: :thumbs_up
dante - :yawnb: (and vomit). :eek: (read him)
shakespeare, :thumbs_up


[Comparing Kerouac to Homer is akin to comparing the Monkees to Beethoven.

but the Monkees didn't inspire the Beat Generation or the sixties movement or this dismal Generation X, or any generation for that matter, did they Luke? the Monkees are pop smut, you know it, everybody knows it. still they please like boy bands do.

do the monkees have staying power? you claim you hear them played on the radio. I don't. I live in the NYC area and i have never once heard them actually. has anyone else heard them played to the extent luke has? i'm not sure a few radio stations playing the Monkees qualify in the sense somebody goes out and spends their hard-earned money on a Kerouac book.


[By the way... even your premise as to Kerouac's relative position as proved by book sales is grossly flawed. Penguin's 4th best selling author is Homer... but this would only count the translation of Homer owned by Penguin books (that of Robert Fagles) and would ignore the dozens of other English translations including Fitzgerald's, Mandelbaum's... even Dryden's... to say nothing of all the translations into French, Spanish, German, Italian and evry other conceivable language.

fair enough. but Penguin is not exactly a mom & pop publisher either. and the Fagles translation has been reputed in academia alongside Fitzgerald, although i concede that the latter has won the accolades of academic snobs, not laypeople.


[What does popularity have to do in any way with the quality of a work of art?

popularity is only one measure. the other is staying power. this has been discussed ad nauseum in this forum and i think the result was that you and most members agreed that the extent to which a book is read over time is a proper measure of a book's relative worth.

you said, "quality of a work of art"? what does that mean exactly? :lol:


the book has demonstrated that it has staying power, founding a generation and inspiring the next. could harry potter do that? [/COLOR]


["Staying power"? What exactly are we talking about here? 50 years?

yes, and it's within that 50 year span that is still going strong that the landscape of poetry and prose have changed dramatically. consider that Kerouac's Scroll Version is out in hard cover now after 50 years! D. Brinkley just published a big kerouac bio, and critical reviews are emerging all over reconsidering kerouac's body of work in the western literary canon.

kerouac and the Beats defined the Post-WWII generation in the way Hemingway did WW1. and the way when Bukowski came on the scene everybody copied his style. go read the mags/journals/books of poetry of the period and you'll see bukowski's fingerprints all over them.

i think not. stop trivializing kerouac's major contribution in this regard. you're wrong, Luke. say mercy, and you shall have it. :D

which brings me to my next criteria of a great book:

3) the degree to which a book impacts the literature of the period and beyond it. in this regard i mean substantial impact or paradigm shift. it is widely noted that the combined works of Kerouac, Ginsberg, Burroughs, Holmes, et al. changed the face of American prose and poetry as the 50's writers knew it, resulting in a sense of a paradigm shift from formalism.



50 years in terms of art is nothing. People are still talking about Jackson Pollack and even Picasso as if they were contemporary artists. Writers like Barth and Pynchon (already old men) are still digesting the lessons from Joyce.

you Joyceans (if i may call you folks that), crown this fool with academic laurels, but how many books has he actually sold? more importantly, how many people have actually read the book in its entirety outside the academy? kerouac's book is widely known to have popular appeal and eventually after college kids graduate they will likely be done vomiting up all of the Victorian and feminist literature that had been shoved down their throats and will read kerouac's Road or Dharma Bums. where is Joyce in Penguin's best-selling list? that would be a start, unless you have a total sale number. then we can get into literary influence, etc. you mention these two obscure writers (?) influenced by Joyce, which hardly qualifies in my mind. c'mon, give me something to chew, Luke.


[Thomas Kinkade sold far more paintings than Rembrandt... so he's a better painter? A couple 100-million people bought Jonathan Livingston Seagull (and none of them will admit to it now) so its a great novel?

i admit it. jonathan livingston seagull is a great book---

Well, at least I know where you're coming from here.:rolleyes:

there you go with your i-know-better-than-you eye roll. sure you do, so long as you think you do. the sale of books is only the first criteria. the NYC/NJ public inter-library system in my area is quite elaborate having a healthy stock of JL Seagull books as well as his other less known works. not bad for a book published, when, in the 70s? 2) have Bach's books stood the test of time? Sort of, but not substantially. 3) to what extent, if any, has Bach's impact on literature been significant at any time? Not at all. and still, despite it's shortcomings, JL Seagull is a book with something to teach. the prose is good too. simple, but pithy.


that's all i have time for now.

[Virgil]

:lol: Well, I occaisionally hear The Monkeys on the radio. They have two songs that are classic: "Now i'm A Believer" and "Take The Last Train To Clarksville." ;)

But this is an interesting debate. Glad i'm skipping this one. :p

[jon1jt]

:lol: Well, I occaisionally hear The Monkeys on the radio. They have two songs that are classic: "Now i'm A Believer" and "Take The Last Train To Clarksville." ;)

But this is an interesting debate. Glad i'm skipping this one. :p

join in virgil don't be silly. this is what it's all about, point for point.

[Virgil]

join in virgil don't be silly. this is what it's all about, point for point.

Well, i'm not sure what else i have to say. I liked On The Road, as I've already said, but it's not a great novel. I also think you're overemphasizing its influence. Yes, it influenced the Beat Generation (I'm not sure I would say it started it; didn't Ginsburg's "Howl" come first?) but the Beat generation is just a sub section of the overall literary generation, and I'm not all that sure a sizable one at that. As to Homer, well that influenced centuries, if not millenium. Actually, Joyce's Ullysses of 1922 is still looking back to Homer, over 2600 years later. But there is something endearing about On The Road. Kerouac looks back to the picaresque novel which was more popular in the 18th century and brings it into the 20th century. In that respect it does branch out away from just the parochial beat generation. Perhaps through a different form (not that he invented the picaresque novel, but that he reintroduces it) he is bringing a different insight to 20th century experience. I ought to re-read it.

[PeterL]

I have read several books by Kerouac, and On the Road was the worst of his writing from what I have read. Dharma Bums is very good.

[mcvv09]

Proust was the biggest snub, if they were looking at international literature. However, they are all books written in the english language. Don't knock kerouac. My favorite is Dharma bums, as Anything else is far too confusing and nonsecial. Sons and lovers is far too high. Women in love should have been top 10.

[jon1jt]

Proust was the biggest snub, if they were looking at international literature. However, they are all books written in the english language. Don't knock kerouac. My favorite is Dharma bums, as Anything else is far too confusing and nonsecial. Sons and lovers is far too high. Women in love should have been top 10.

well, i agree with half of what you said. :D

[Mark F.]

I've read 23 on Virgil's list. Don Quixote 1st? Two volumes of coprophilic humour is better than any other novel? Camus should be ranked higher than 58.

[ThousandthIsle]

It is my opinion that there are many books that shouldn't have been written, because they seek to convey experiences, rather than ideas, and the experiences that they seek to convey are readily available in the real world.

Well said. The subject matter in On the Road was mature (in a "PG-13" or "R"-rated kind of way), but it was highly reminscent of stories elementary schoolers write, where the substance is limited to events and never developed into anything more.

I'm not throwing elementary school in there as a cheap blow, but I think it is very comparable to On the Road. When I think back to how I wrote in my early years, it was all "And then... and then... and then..." Just me getting carried away in my excitement of everything that happened and then expecting it to be meaningful and relevant to the rest of the world. Self-indulgence is rarely interesting to anyone else.

Kerouac's book was very flat, there was no depth, weight, or meaning behind his words, they could all be taken at face value, and as a result, I was highly disappointed... and bored.

I love dropping this quote, because it sums up OTR so well: "That isn't writing, that's typing."

[JoanS]

Jon1jt,you are confused.. the good literature is NOT written for readers, its just expresing of autor..
i dont remeber who said it but its true.
The best writers havent readers..

[jon1jt]

I love dropping this quote, because it sums up OTR so well: "That isn't writing, that's typing."

yeah, that line is from that jerk truman capote, who was jealous at the time he said it on national TV when asked about kerouac. i'm familiar with that too.

[Virgil]

Jon1jt,you are confused.. the good literature is NOT written for readers, its just expresing of autor..
i dont remeber who said it but its true.
The best writers havent readers..

Well, that's rediculous. What a waste of time and energy if there are no readers. And frankly it's wrong. Tell that to Shakespeare.

[JoanS]

Why Kafka, Proust and Joyce are read only by literature rats like us and Paolo Coelho has millions of readers?

[Virgil]

Who says only by literature rats? I know non-literary people who have read them.

[JoanS]

I dont. I envy you..

[Virgil]

I dont. I envy you..

It's not only that. Those authors wrote 75 to 100 years ago. They are not relevant to current readership. General public readers are interested in current writers. If no one was interested in Kafka, Joyce, or Proust in their day, no one would have published them.

[chaplin]

Pertaining to African-American Literature: I would put Go Tell it on the Mountain ahead of Native Son, but not ahead of Invisible Man. Ellison's and Baldwin's books were obviously, steadily crafted by the steady hand of a master, while Wright's, in my opinion, was made by the inconsistently brilliant hands of one almost reaching mastery.

[jon1jt]

Pertaining to African-American Literature: I would put Go Tell it on the Mountain ahead of Native Son, but not ahead of Invisible Man. Ellison's and Baldwin's books were obviously, steadily crafted by the steady hand of a master, while Wright's, in my opinion, was made by the inconsistently brilliant hands of one almost reaching mastery.

"African-American Literature" is that not part of that class of books known simply as, Literature? we need to get over these gratuitous categorizations that divide, not unite.

[stlukesguild]

"African-American Literature" is that not part of that class of books known simply as, Literature? we need to get over these gratuitous categorizations that divide, not unite.

For once we agree on something. If I am simply reading something because it was by an African-American or a woman or a Jew or a cross-dressing Native American dwarf... then something is seriously wrong with my motivations. I don't read Emily Dickinson because she's a good poet "for a woman" or listen to Miles Davis because he's good "for a black musician"... I don't make artistic choices based on affirmative action or egalitarianism... I am seeking out what gives me the greatest pleasure, period.

ps... by the way... that would not include Kerouac:D

[jon1jt]

"African-American Literature" is that not part of that class of books known simply as, Literature? we need to get over these gratuitous categorizations that divide, not unite.

For once we agree on something. If I am simply reading something because it was by an African-American or a woman or a Jew or a cross-dressing Native American dwarf... then something is seriously wrong with my motivations. I don't read Emily Dickinson because she's a good poet "for a woman" or listen to Miles Davis because he's good "for a black musician"... I don't make artistic choices based on affirmative action or egalitarianism... I am seeking out what gives me the greatest pleasure, period.

ps... by the way... that would not include Kerouac:D


just when we are about to have a male-bonding moment, you zing me good about my favorite author. :lol:

[Scheherazade]

"African-American Literature" is that not part of that class of books known simply as, Literature? we need to get over these gratuitous categorizations that divide, not unite.

For once we agree on something. If I am simply reading something because it was by an African-American or a woman or a Jew or a cross-dressing Native American dwarf... then something is seriously wrong with my motivations. I don't read Emily Dickinson because she's a good poet "for a woman" or listen to Miles Davis because he's good "for a black musician"... I don't make artistic choices based on affirmative action or egalitarianism... I am seeking out what gives me the greatest pleasure, period. Nicely put! :thumbs_up

(I know it doesn't mean much coming from a froggie but... ;))

[Virgil]

"African-American Literature" is that not part of that class of books known simply as, Literature? we need to get over these gratuitous categorizations that divide, not unite.


"African-American Literature" is that not part of that class of books known simply as, Literature? we need to get over these gratuitous categorizations that divide, not unite.

For once we agree on something. If I am simply reading something because it was by an African-American or a woman or a Jew or a cross-dressing Native American dwarf... then something is seriously wrong with my motivations. I don't read Emily Dickinson because she's a good poet "for a woman" or listen to Miles Davis because he's good "for a black musician"... I don't make artistic choices based on affirmative action or egalitarianism... I am seeking out what gives me the greatest pleasure, period.

ps... by the way... that would not include Kerouac:D

You might expect me to agree with that, however I don't. Literature is partially about experience (the other part being language) and to deny the fact that there are cultural experiences that can be catagorized and understood within a historical context is to deny reality. A young black man growing up in mid 20th century America has a particular experience, and if enough mid century African-Americans are writing literature (and therefore a discussion and debate of that experience ensues) then a catagory of literature exits. Just look at the marvelous catagory of southern literature, or New England 19th century literature. Even though people know my mixed sentiments about feminism, there is no doubt that a woman's literature exists, and presents a different perspective from male written literature.

No i don't agree about the balkinizing of our country (and Lord knows I'm politically against it in almost every way), but catagorizing and grouping is an intellectual endeavor going back at least to Aristotle, if not before. Understanding the nuances of a group makes one appreciate the works much more.

[PeterL]

The best writers havent readers..

I hope that you are right, but I hope to change that a little.


Well said. The subject matter in On the Road was mature (in a "PG-13" or "R"-rated kind of way), but it was highly reminscent of stories elementary schoolers write, where the substance is limited to events and never developed into anything more.

I'm not throwing elementary school in there as a cheap blow, but I think it is very comparable to On the Road. When I think back to how I wrote in my early years, it was all "And then... and then... and then..." Just me getting carried away in my excitement of everything that happened and then expecting it to be meaningful and relevant to the rest of the world. Self-indulgence is rarely interesting to anyone else.

Kerouac's book was very flat, there was no depth, weight, or meaning behind his words, they could all be taken at face value, and as a result, I was highly disappointed... and bored.

I love dropping this quote, because it sums up OTR so well: "That isn't writing, that's typing."

Oddly enough, yesterday I heard part of a thing on Public Radio that claimed that Kerouac had some deeper meaning. There was a little dissatisfaction, but the book was almost entirely of the "and then" sort.

[jon1jt]

You might expect me to agree with that, however I don't. Literature is partially about experience (the other part being language) and to deny the fact that there are cultural experiences that can be catagorized and understood within a historical context is to deny reality. A young black man growing up in mid 20th century America has a particular experience, and if enough mid century African-Americans are writing literature (and therefore a discussion and debate of that experience ensues) then a catagory of literature exits. Just look at the marvelous catagory of southern literature, or New England 19th century literature. Even though people know my mixed sentiments about feminism, there is no doubt that a woman's literature exists, and presents a different perspective from male written literature.

No i don't agree about the balkinizing of our country (and Lord knows I'm politically against it in almost every way), but catagorizing and grouping is an intellectual endeavor going back at least to Aristotle, if not before. Understanding the nuances of a group makes one appreciate the works much more.


virgil, i'm thoroughly disappointed in you. :D i know you've heard it all before, but can people of european ancestory use the categorization, "White Literature"?

[Quark]

but can people of european ancestory use the categorization, "White Literature"?

Isn't there "British Literature", "Irish Literature", "Russian Literature", etc.? Are you suggesting we get rid of those distinctions?

[Virgil]

virgil, i'm thoroughly disappointed in you. :D i know you've heard it all before, but can people of european ancestory use the categorization, "White Literature"?

Don't you think that it's implied? As Quark writes below there are catagories of european literature, actually broken down by nationalities.

[Nightshade]

Actually it really depends on how you define 'white' doesnt it?
I can see why and how the distinction can not only be limiting but also offensive especially at the level of so called 'worthy literature' . I mean by that books that are meant to convey a cultural/social point. Or are set within a certain section of society ( although with this last one shouldnt it just be called literature?)
But at the same time take the level of popular romances ( mills and boons harlquin, Bravo, Zebra thats sort of thing) I am fairly sure that of our library collection ( 2 bays so about 8 shelves each with about 50 books and thats only the normal print LPs not included) we have at the most 1 or 2 stories where the charcters are black....( although M&B seem fond of the titles with sheik and Itallian in them) and thats because of our readers demgraphic. Now in manchester for the first time I saw 'black romances' even the covers are differnt. And the reason is I guess people like to be able to realte to the people they are reading about.

I know I for one cant read thriller novels where all the charcters are men ( like submariene things what was it called the red tide? Tom Clancy very famous was made into a film) I dont understand men and have practilly no frame of referance to the male mind so I end up getting annoyed.

But other things like actually I cant think of one right this sec other than lord of the flies which I havent got round to reading yet but I know Ive read some more 'literary' books with all male charcters and havent got that badly annoyed.

[Nico87]

Birdsong by Sebastian Faulks should be there!

[drunkenKOALA]

Hey did someone knock catcher in the rye? I like it, I think it deserves its place on the list.

Also on the international all time list, I don't see The Idiot? I thought it was better than Crime and Punishment, but that may have just been the translation. At any rate it should've been in the top 100, even if not ahead of Crime and Punishment.

[SlavetothePen]

The list that stared this post has a companion list. This is The Modern Library's 100 best books as ranked by the "readers". The first was ranked by "the board". Let's see if you guy's think this one is better...
(both lists are shown side by side at: http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html)

1. ATLAS SHRUGGED by Ayn Rand
2. THE FOUNTAINHEAD by Ayn Rand
3. BATTLEFIELD EARTH by L. Ron Hubbard
4. THE LORD OF THE RINGS by J.R.R. Tolkien
5. TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD by Harper Lee
6. 1984 by George Orwell
7. ANTHEM by Ayn Rand
8. WE THE LIVING by Ayn Rand
9. MISSION EARTH by L. Ron Hubbard
10. FEAR by L. Ron Hubbard
11. ULYSSES by James Joyce
12. CATCH-22 by Joseph Heller
13. THE GREAT GATSBY by F. Scott Fitzgerald
14. DUNE by Frank Herbert
15. THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS by Robert Heinlein
16. STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND by Robert Heinlein
17. A TOWN LIKE ALICE by Nevil Shute
18. BRAVE NEW WORLD by Aldous Huxley
19. THE CATCHER IN THE RYE by J.D. Salinger
20. ANIMAL FARM by George Orwell
21. GRAVITY'S RAINBOW by Thomas Pynchon
22. THE GRAPES OF WRATH by John Steinbeck
23. SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE by Kurt Vonnegut
24. GONE WITH THE WIND by Margaret Mitchell
25. LORD OF THE FLIES by William Golding
26. SHANE by Jack Schaefer
27. TRUSTEE FROM THE TOOLROOM by Nevil Shute
28. A PRAYER FOR OWEN MEANY by John Irving
29. THE STAND by Stephen King
30. THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN by John Fowles
31. BELOVED by Toni Morrison
32. THE WORM OUROBOROS by E.R. Eddison
33. THE SOUND AND THE FURY by William Faulkner
34. LOLITA by Vladimir Nabokov
35. MOONHEART by Charles de Lint
36. ABSALOM, ABSALOM! by William Faulkner
37. OF HUMAN BONDAGE by W. Somerset Maugham
38. WISE BLOOD by Flannery O'Connor
39. UNDER THE VOLCANO by Malcolm Lowry
40. FIFTH BUSINESS by Robertson Davies
41. SOMEPLACE TO BE FLYING by Charles de Lint
42. ON THE ROAD by Jack Kerouac
43. HEART OF DARKNESS by Joseph Conrad
44. YARROW by Charles de Lint
45. AT THE MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS by H.P. Lovecraft
46. ONE LONELY NIGHT by Mickey Spillane
47. MEMORY AND DREAM by Charles de Lint
48. TO THE LIGHTHOUSE by Virginia Woolf
49. THE MOVIEGOER by Walker Percy
50. TRADER by Charles de Lint
51. THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY by Douglas Adams
52. THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER by Carson McCullers
53. THE HANDMAID'S TALE by Margaret Atwood
54. BLOOD MERIDIAN by Cormac McCarthy
55. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE by Anthony Burgess
56. ON THE BEACH by Nevil Shute
57. A PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN by James Joyce
58. GREENMANTLE by Charles de Lint
59. ENDER'S GAME by Orson Scott Card
60. THE LITTLE COUNTRY by Charles de Lint
61. THE RECOGNITIONS by William Gaddis
62. STARSHIP TROOPERS by Robert Heinlein
63. THE SUN ALSO RISES by Ernest Hemingway
64. THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP by John Irving
65. SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES by Ray Bradbury
66. THE HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE by Shirley Jackson
67. AS I LAY DYING by William Faulkner
68. TROPIC OF CANCER by Henry Miller
69. INVISIBLE MAN by Ralph Ellison
70. THE WOOD WIFE by Terri Windling
71. THE MAGUS by John Fowles
72. THE DOOR INTO SUMMER by Robert Heinlein
73. ZEN AND THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE by Robert Pirsig
74. I, CLAUDIUS by Robert Graves
75. THE CALL OF THE WILD by Jack London
76. AT SWIM-TWO-BIRDS by Flann O'Brien
77. FARENHEIT 451 by Ray Bradbury
78. ARROWSMITH by Sinclair Lewis
79. WATERSHIP DOWN by Richard Adams
80. NAKED LUNCH by William S. Burroughs
81. THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER by Tom Clancy
82. GUILTY PLEASURES by Laurell K. Hamilton
83. THE PUPPET MASTERS by Robert Heinlein
84. IT by Stephen King
85. V. by Thomas Pynchon
86. DOUBLE STAR by Robert Heinlein
87. CITIZEN OF THE GALAXY by Robert Heinlein
88. BRIDESHEAD REVISITED by Evelyn Waugh
89. LIGHT IN AUGUST by William Faulkner
90. ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST by Ken Kesey
91. A FAREWELL TO ARMS by Ernest Hemingway
92. THE SHELTERING SKY by Paul Bowles
93. SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION by Ken Kesey
94. MY ANTONIA by Willa Cather
95. MULENGRO by Charles de Lint
96. SUTTREE by Cormac McCarthy
97. MYTHAGO WOOD by Robert Holdstock
98. ILLUSIONS by Richard Bach
99. THE CUNNING MAN by Robertson Davies
100. THE SATANIC VERSES by Salman Rushdie

I find it interesting that Ayn Rand is nowhere to be found on "the boards" list and she's the top two on "the readers".

[Noisms]

I find it interesting that Ayn Rand is nowhere to be found on "the boards" list and she's the top two on "the readers".

Good God. I think that says something about the kind of people who bother to vote for such lists, rather than anything else. That is: the voters can only be lunatics and impressionable teenagers.

[amalia1985]

I would also suggest Milan Kundera' "The Unbearable Lightness of Being".
P.S. I may be a lunatic, but teenager at 22...I don't think so....

[*Classic*Charm*]

Good God. I think that says something about the kind of people who bother to vote for such lists, rather than anything else. That is: the voters can only be lunatics and impressionable teenagers.

HAHA so true...

[Granny5]

Good God. I think that says something about the kind of people who bother to vote for such lists, rather than anything else. That is: the voters can only be lunatics and impressionable teenagers.

I have to agree with you on this. L. Ron Hubbard?? Wasn't he some sort of cult leader or something?

[*Classic*Charm*]

You might expect me to agree with that, however I don't. Literature is partially about experience (the other part being language) and to deny the fact that there are cultural experiences that can be catagorized and understood within a historical context is to deny reality. A young black man growing up in mid 20th century America has a particular experience, and if enough mid century African-Americans are writing literature (and therefore a discussion and debate of that experience ensues) then a catagory of literature exits. Just look at the marvelous catagory of southern literature, or New England 19th century literature. Even though people know my mixed sentiments about feminism, there is no doubt that a woman's literature exists, and presents a different perspective from male written literature.

No i don't agree about the balkinizing of our country (and Lord knows I'm politically against it in almost every way), but catagorizing and grouping is an intellectual endeavor going back at least to Aristotle, if not before. Understanding the nuances of a group makes one appreciate the works much more.

But Virgil, isn't that the whole point of good literature? A novel bceomes a classic because of its ability to touch everyone. If we started to catagorize novels by the secular cultures they reach, then the number of novels considered good literature will increase dramatically. Each group of people will have its own literature and lists such as the ones posted before will have no relevance whatsoever. It would become a contest of population, that is, the novels to reach the top of the list will be considered "great" by the specific group of people who find them relevant and perhaps not by other groups, and the group with the most people gets its novels to the top of the list. That may sound confusing, but I'm saying that the only way to really establish the greatness of a piece of literature is to establish its relevance to all people.

Of course, we use terms such as "Russian literature" to relate the piece to the cultural backgrounds of the authors, but it is not intended to limit the piece to a certain audience.


I have to agree with you on this. L. Ron Hubbard?? Wasn't he some sort of cult leader or something?

He created scientology, if I'm not mistaken. I'm also pretty sure he denounced scientology later as a creation of his own imagination and not to be taken seriously, (Not saying that to offend, please correct me if I'm wrong) this was before it became a recognised religion.

[Virgil]

But Virgil, isn't that the whole point of good literature? A novel bceomes a classic because of its ability to touch everyone. If we started to catagorize novels by the secular cultures they reach, then the number of novels considered good literature will increase dramatically. Each group of people will have its own literature and lists such as the ones posted before will have no relevance whatsoever. It would become a contest of population, that is, the novels to reach the top of the list will be considered "great" by the specific group of people who find them relevant and perhaps not by other groups, and the group with the most people gets its novels to the top of the list. That may sound confusing, but I'm saying that the only way to really establish the greatness of a piece of literature is to establish its relevance to all people.

Of course, we use terms such as "Russian literature" to relate the piece to the cultural backgrounds of the authors, but it is not intended to limit the piece to a certain audience.

Let me answer you by reiterating your own words:

Of course, we use terms such as "Russian literature" to relate the piece to the cultural backgrounds of the authors, but it is not intended to limit the piece to a certain audience.
Your complaint is pushing the argument further than what is the reality. The reality is that this is for catagorizing purposes. I don't see the harm in lumping African-American literature together. Yes all literature has to "touch everyone." That's a fundemental. But in addition to the fundemental, literature also grows out of a tradition and particular experience. Such as "Russian literature." Although I'm an American, I am not a African-American who grew up under Jim Crow (segregation) laws. A number of writers have, and they have a common cultural (sub-cultural, in this case) set of ideas that I didn't experience. I don't see what is wrong in catagorizing them in such a manner.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I do see what you mean, but then where do we draw the line?? If we continue to divide, how far do we go?

[Noisms]

He created scientology, if I'm not mistaken. I'm also pretty sure he denounced scientology later as a creation of his own imagination and not to be taken seriously, (Not saying that to offend, please correct me if I'm wrong) this was before it became a recognised religion.

He was a lot more sinister than that actually: he was a pathological liar who used his 'religion' to squeeze lots of money out of foolish people and have hanky panky with lots of foolish young women. Like most cult leaders, in fact. I'm not aware of him denouncing scientology at any point.

That said, he was apparently an okay sci-fi writer. But again, the fact that he's in the list makes me suspicious about who voted. As I said, probably lunatics and impressionable teenagers - with scientologists as a sub-section of the former.

[tscherff]

regarding the classification of afro american literature

h g wells could not have written "invisible man" or did he?

[husker du]

Jack Kerouac's Road shows up at the 55 spot on this list, and #6 on the ALL TIME BEST SELLING PENGUIN BOOKS. you say it has only, "some good features." not a top 100, huh? :lol: read it again. or maybe you stopped dreaming long ago.

yet, nobody calls out Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath on this list?? and they have Tropic of Cancer at 50???? :alien: okay, ssurrrreeee.

I know this thread is really old, but I just wanted to highlight the humor of someone championing Kerouac for his "imagination" and how he helped to create an entire generation (wow, he must have been really busy, huh?), but then insulting Tropic of Cancer.

And I side with everyone else in here who finds On the Road to be terrifically boring. It's like literature if it were devoid of all imagination and creativity.

[DanielBenoit]

Those are all novels written in English. The title should be best 20th Century Novels Written in English.

Thank God you pointed that out, I was about to throw a hissy fit :lol:

I completely agree with everything on the list, especially Ulysses. Though I do have a beef with Portrait taking number three. It's certainly a good novel, but it's not one of Joyce's best, and doesn't deserve to be above Finnegans Wake or the top ten. Switch places with those two and I'm happy.

[African_Love]

I only recognize two novels on that list written by Black people, lol.

I prefer Radcliffe's list :


1.The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald
2.The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
3.The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
4.To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
5.The Color Purple by Alice Walker
6.Ulysses by James Joyce
7.Beloved by Toni Morrison
8.The Lord of the Flies by William Golding
9.1984 by George Orwell
10.The Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner
11.Lolita by Vladmir Nabokov
12.Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
13.Charlotte's Web by E.B. White
14.A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce
15.Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
16.Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
17.Animal Farm by George Orwell
18.The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
19.As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
20.A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
21.Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
22.Winnie-the-Pooh by A.A. Milne
23.Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston
24.Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
25.Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison
26.Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
27.Native Son by Richard Wright
28.One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
29.Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut
30.For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway
31.On the Road by Jack Kerouac
32.The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway
33.The Call of the Wild by Jack London
34.To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf
35.Portrait of a Lady by Henry James
36.Go Tell it on the Mountain by James Baldwin
37.The World According to Garp by John Irving
38.All the King's Men by Robert Penn Warren
39.A Room with a View by E.M. Forster
40.The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien
41.Schindler's List by Thomas Keneally
42.The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton
43.The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
44.Finnegans Wake by James Joyce
45.The Jungle by Upton Sinclair
46.Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf
47.The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum
48.Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
49.A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
50.The Awakening by Kate Chopin
51.My Antonia by Willa Cather
52.Howards End by E.M. Forster
53.In Cold Blood by Truman Capote
54.Franny and Zooey by J.D. Salinger
55.The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie
56.Jazz by Toni Morrison
57.Sophie's Choice by William Styron
58.Absalom, Absalom! by William Faulkner
59.A Passage to India by E.M. Forster
60.Ethan Frome by Edith Wharton
61.A Good Man Is Hard to Find by Flannery O'Connor
62.Tender Is the Night by F. Scott Fitzgerald
63.Orlando by Virginia Woolf
64.Sons and Lovers by D.H. Lawrence
65.Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom Wolfe
66.Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut
67.A Separate Peace by John Knowles
68.Light in August by William Faulkner
69.The Wings of the Dove by Henry James
70.Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe
71.Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier
72.A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams
73.Naked Lunch by William S. Burroughs
74.Brideshead Revisited by Evelyn Waugh
75.Women in Love by D.H. Lawrence
76.Look Homeward, Angel by Thomas Wolfe
77.In Our Time by Ernest Hemingway
78.The Autobiography of Alice B. Tokias by Gertrude Stein
79.The Maltese Falcon by Dashiell Hammett
80.The Naked and the Dead by Norman Mailer
81.Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys
82.White Noise by Don DeLillo
83.O Pioneers! by Willa Cather
84.Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller
85.The War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells
86.Lord Jim by Joseph Conrad
87.The Bostonians by Henry James
88.An American Tragedy by Theodore Dreiser
89.Death Comes for the Archbishop by Willa Cather
90.The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame
91.This Side of Paradise by F. Scott Fitzgerald
92.Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
93.The French Lieutenant's Woman by John Fowles
94.Babbitt by Sinclair Lewis
95.Kim by Rudyard Kipling
96.The Beautiful and the Damned by F. Scott Fitzgerald
97.Rabbit, Run by John Updike
98.Where Angels Fear to Tread by E.M. Forster
99.Main Street by Sinclair Lewis
100.Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie

[JBI]

Good God. I think that says something about the kind of people who bother to vote for such lists, rather than anything else. That is: the voters can only be lunatics and impressionable teenagers.

Yeah, what we learn is that boring American critics have slightly better taste than uneducated American readers.

Either way, both lists are pretty boring.

[dfloyd]

Lists are just lists and do not mean much. Also, no one has mentioned this, but I think the directors of The Modern Librar only voted for books published in The Modern Library. As lists go, there are some good books there. I counted the ones I have read and came up with fifty-three. If you're favorite book is not on the list, so what? It doesn't mean your favorite isn;t a good book. It also doesn't mean you shouldn't read the books that are on the list.

[~ Annabel ~]

For those who dont know yet the list.

The Modern Library's 100 Best Novels.


65 A CLOCKWORK ORANGE Anthony Burgess


:nod:
it should be
in first 20

[spookymulder93]

I just got done reading The Great Gatsby, and previously I've read- BRAVE NEW WORLD, CATCH-22, 1984, ANIMAL FARM, THE CATCHER IN THE RYE, and SLAUGHTERHOUSE-FIVE.

Animal Farm is my favorite novel on the list so far. I have Lolita coming in the mail next week. I've read a few passages from it online and it seems to be beautifully written.

[Trekker114]

I guess it's an alright list for 20th century novels in English. There are some choices, placements, and omissions that I strongly disagree with, but I wouldn't be in total agreement with any such list.

"I find it interesting that Ayn Rand is nowhere to be found on "the boards" list and she's the top two on "the readers"."

I also took a look at their two non-fiction lists (again, one by the board and one by online vote). The reader's non-fiction list also fetishizes Rand and libertarianism to ridiculous degree...just the top 10:


THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS by AYN RAND
DIANETICS:THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH by L. RON HUBBARD
OBJECTIVISM: THE PHILOSOPHY OF AYN RAND by LEONARD PEIKOFF
101 THINGS TO DO TIL THE REVOLUTION by CLAIRE WOLFE
THE GOD OF THE MACHINE by ISABEL PATERSON
AYN RAND: A SENSE OF LIFE by MICHAEL PAXTON
THE ULTIMATE RESOURCE by JULIAN SIMON
ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON by HENRY HAZLITT
SEND IN THE WACO KILLERS by VIN SUPRYNOWICZ
MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME by JOHN R. LOTT

[larryF]

I think it's an excellent list. I mean, for anyone to argue what should or shouldnt be on there is pretty much a waste of time, its all subjective. But its a pretty great list for a new reader on how to break into 20th century literature.

[OrphanPip]

I guess it's an alright list for 20th century novels in English. There are some choices, placements, and omissions that I strongly disagree with, but I wouldn't be in total agreement with any such list.

"I find it interesting that Ayn Rand is nowhere to be found on "the boards" list and she's the top two on "the readers"."

I also took a look at their two non-fiction lists (again, one by the board and one by online vote). The reader's non-fiction list also fetishizes Rand and libertarianism to ridiculous degree...just the top 10:



The reader list is awful, it stinks of an organized voting campaign to support Rand and Hubbard. I'm used to seeing Randians propping up her libertarian trash, but Hubbard isn't even respected amongst sci-fi readers.

Edit: Seriously, Hubbard's anti-psychology pseudoscientific garbage as the number 2 non-fiction book. The guy was a raving homophobic and sexist scam artist.