Guardian List of 100 Best Novels of All Time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Middlemarch fine but it's not even my favorite Eliot (Daniel Deronda is). Dorothea is such a frustrating character.

She's frustrating, but also amazing. I don't need "likeable" characters, and her flaws are such a part of who she is. And she's so young! The novel does such an amazing job of showing her idealism turn into heartbreak and disillusion.

The novel was one of the first to approach secular humanism as an ideology and moral force separate from any faiths. You now understand why it's beloved of overeducated atheists of certain generations. Despite that the main character is dreary and pathetic and unsympathetic.

My response to the Guardian list is that it reflects the Guardian, warts and biases and prejudices and all, rather than the reading public. Just see their hysterical disclaimer and plea at the bottom of the page to give you an idea of what to expect from the people who had their say in creating this list.

But on the whole, it is a solid list of great books. The ranking itself is silly.

This ^.

[Anonymous]

The disclaimer is “The greatest literature ever published in English”, but includes works by Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy. Were those not published in Russian originally?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The disclaimer is “The greatest literature ever published in English”, but includes works by Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy. Were those not published in Russian originally?

It didn’t say “ORIGINALLY published”. I assume they feel that since English translations have been published making them acceptable to English readers, they’re fair game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The disclaimer is “The greatest literature ever published in English”, but includes works by Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy. Were those not published in Russian originally?

It didn’t say “ORIGINALLY published”. I assume they feel that since English translations have been published making them acceptable to English readers, they’re fair game.

Then Les Miserables is a glaring omission, and this list can't be taken seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The disclaimer is “The greatest literature ever published in English”, but includes works by Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy. Were those not published in Russian originally?

Also, One Hundred Years of Solitude and Don Quixote were written in Spanish.

So, yeah, I agree with the other poster who said Les Mis is an unforgivable omission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The disclaimer is “The greatest literature ever published in English”, but includes works by Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy. Were those not published in Russian originally?

Also, One Hundred Years of Solitude and Don Quixote were written in Spanish.

So, yeah, I agree with the other poster who said Les Mis is an unforgivable omission.

I also didn't see anything by Vonnegut on there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Middlemarch fine but it's not even my favorite Eliot (Daniel Deronda is). Dorothea is such a frustrating character.

She's frustrating, but also amazing. I don't need "likeable" characters, and her flaws are such a part of who she is. And she's so young! The novel does such an amazing job of showing her idealism turn into heartbreak and disillusion.

The novel was one of the first to approach secular humanism as an ideology and moral force separate from any faiths. You now understand why it's beloved of overeducated atheists of certain generations. Despite that the main character is dreary and pathetic and unsympathetic.

My response to the Guardian list is that it reflects the Guardian, warts and biases and prejudices and all, rather than the reading public. Just see their hysterical disclaimer and plea at the bottom of the page to give you an idea of what to expect from the people who had their say in creating this list.

But on the whole, it is a solid list of great books. The ranking itself is silly.

It’s weird to me to say “it reflects the Guardian, warts and biases and prejudices and all” when the Guardian is basically just compiling recommendations of 170 other people.

I mean sure you can argue who they picked for those 170 people reflects their biases and warts but a) 170 people is a lot; and b) the list of people they surveyed is pretty broad.

It’s obviously not a perfect methodology— there obviously isn’t one— but it’s not like when Rolling Stone has 5 editors pick the best albums of all time.

[Anonymous]

Not a single Steinbeck. Sh*t list

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a single Steinbeck. Sh*t list

It's also a bit of a boring list, honestly. I'd like to see something daring on there. If you're going to get the potential flak for a best novels list, at least be interesting about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a single Steinbeck. Sh*t list

It's also a bit of a boring list, honestly. I'd like to see something daring on there. If you're going to get the potential flak for a best novels list, at least be interesting about it.

What about The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, in the top 20? I've barely even heard of it... Although I admit I am now intrigued (if not quite sold on reading 9 volumes of an "experimental anti-novel")

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a single Steinbeck. Sh*t list

It's also a bit of a boring list, honestly. I'd like to see something daring on there. If you're going to get the potential flak for a best novels list, at least be interesting about it.

What about The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, in the top 20? I've barely even heard of it... Although I admit I am now intrigued (if not quite sold on reading 9 volumes of an "experimental anti-novel")

It is brilliantly funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These lists always make me laugh. So many books that were deemed "important" by old, mostly white people long ago. There are some newer books on there, of course.

The Guardian is out of the UK and it shows.

What's wrong with being white? Are we supposed to list books from every part of the globe? We live in a euro-centric culture and there is literally nothing wrong with that.

The list is definitely not just white people. There’s at least five from African American writers, one from the Caribbean, at least one from India, at least one from Korea, at least one Latin anmericqn, and at least two from Africa. That was just based on my clocking on a few so I suspect there are a lot more. Some Anglo bias is to be expected given that it’s a list generated by English speakers of books read in English.

Whoa! Out of 100, that's all they could find? That's sad.

You lose a lot even with the best translations. This is presumably a list of the best novels in English. But even with the difficulties in translation, Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Fyodor Dostoevsky are still life-changing reads. I can only imagine what it's like reading their books in the original language.

But, generally, you always lose a lot of subtlety in translations. And this is a list of best books in English, so anything that needs to be translated needs to be pretty darn compelling to break through all the problems that translation presents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a single Steinbeck. Sh*t list

It's also a bit of a boring list, honestly. I'd like to see something daring on there. If you're going to get the potential flak for a best novels list, at least be interesting about it.

I think the methodology of taking 170 top ten (or whatever) lists probably flattens it out some— any given person’s top 100 is going to be more “interesting “.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The disclaimer is “The greatest literature ever published in English”, but includes works by Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy. Were those not published in Russian originally?

It didn’t say “ORIGINALLY published”. I assume they feel that since English translations have been published making them acceptable to English readers, they’re fair game.

Then Les Miserables is a glaring omission, and this list can't be taken seriously.

Meh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a single Steinbeck. Sh*t list

I was looking to see East of Eden…