Top 100 Books Ultimate List

[Chilly]

Compiled from 6 sources including the Modern Library Board's List (http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html,the Observer's list (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/oct/12/features.fiction), the Literature Network (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40711), Dr. Burt from the New York University (http://www.adherents.com/people/100_novel.html), the Modern Library Reader's list (http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html) and Best100novels.com (http://www.thebest100lists.com/best100novels/).

I counted up the scores on each of these lists, giving 1st place 100 points and going downwards until the 100th with 1 point. Then I restarted on the next list but kept the scores together for books that were repeated until I finished with all of the six lists (366 book titles altogether). Then I totaled the marks for all of them and deducted which ones scored highest. Then I put them in order in the second file and thus it was finished.

It was all done on two Microsoft Excel files which I converted to PDF files so that it could be shared here on Litnet. The second file, with the top 100, looks great, but I had too many columns on the first file so it cut off the last column and placed it below everything else. That's something I don't really know how to fix but luckily that column was just the total mark for each book and can be seen in the second file as well (for the top 100).
Another problem is that in many cases the names of books are too long for their boxes and where cut off half-way through. That's not so bad in the original excel format since you can just click on the box to see everything in it up top but sadly, there's no way to get around that in PDF files. I doubt the problem is so bad, however, that you can't even understand what book it is. This also happened with row 1 on the first file, the row that says where all the lists are from, and that wouldn't be so bad if the first two didn't appear nearly identical. Well here it is rewritten:
Column 1: The Modern Library Board's List
Column 2: The Modern Library Reader's List


By the way, there are 99 Books on the list and not 100 because four books tied for 100th place (92 points each), and I figured I would just exclude all of them to make it fair.


I hope you enjoy the list, even if you don't agree with it (which I'm sure you won't).

I would also like to thank the six sources, including the Literature Network, for allowing to take their work and manipulate it into something else. If it weren't for them, this list would be nothing at all. :D :D

[Chilly]

So this should be the Top 99 Books and not top 100..whoops:blush: :blush:

[Chilly]

These are the actual files-ignore the others--Sorry:blush:

[DanielBenoit]

Well, there are some problems I have with the list, (well many actually, lol).

One is that I think two or three of the derivative sources are focused entirely on the 20th century. Two, is that I admittingly find Best100novels.com list to be totally incompetent. How can you place LOTR above Karamazov? That's like placing The Shack over the Bible. Also, Harry Potter beats Ulysses? (this is only in regards to that particular websites list).

The list I like the most is Daniel S. Burt's which actually lists the immortals like Don Quixote or In Search of Lost Time, and doesn't rank undeniably great works of literature like Ulysses or Karamazov below average and sometimes mediocre contemporary novels.

All and all the end result it a mix of populism and literary "elitism" (which is a ridiculous term, for how is it "elitist" to call Don Quioxte or Ulysses better than Harry Potter?).

Either way, I appreciate your effort and found the end result to be interesting and I especially appreciate all of the time and effort you put into it :)

I hereby prophesize that this thread is bound to end up expanding to over six pages and going off onto the most discreet subjects. ;)

[IceM]

Ayn Rand had 4 berths in the top 100. Dostoyevsky had 3. Dickens had less.

I appreciate the effort, but these findings on some other lists are jokes. Rand is crap. She supercedes Dickens and Dostoyevsky, legendary novelists for more berths. A joke in itself.

But once again, nice effort to compile the lists. Much appreciated.

[Chilly]

You guys are right, I think. Most of it is junk. I'm not an expert but I could tell that the Modern Library is certainly biased-only counts 20th century American Literature for the most part, a lot of which is never mentioned by the other lists or by any of the experts. So many of the titles I had never heard of and when I looked them up on the internet pretty little information came up. Also, the Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons are both up there alongside the Harry Potter Series and a bunch of others with little literary value. So it isn't really trustable but it's still interesting, I hope?

[papayahed]

I hereby prophesize that this thread is bound to end up expanding to over six pages and going off onto the most discreet subjects. ;)

I know, right? I'm ready: :lurk5: too bad it's so predictable it will be the same tired arguments by the same posters.


Anyways, I love me some lists!!

[Chilly]

I made a grave mistake while I calculated it. Lolita isn't even on the list, it should be fourth place and everything below it should be one lower now.

And you guys were wrong about this dragging into a ridiculous debate:)

[jadrianne]

is at the end?

[Chilly]

Hamlet is at the end because it was only voted on once (by Litnet)-it had the sad fate of many good books that didn't make the final cut because most of the lists ignored it:mad:. (the flipside to this is many bad books got on the list because they were given overly high marks) The only reason it's on the list at all is because Litnet gave it such a high mark.

It just goes to show how flawed the final list is.