That's a strange list in places. Deliverance? (no. 42, a virtual tie with the first Graham Greene on the list). I was startled, also, to see I, Claudius at 14.
Finnegan's Wake is on there. I'm a big fan of Joyce, but I must admit surprise that anyone can first of all understand Finnegan's Wake, and appreciate it enough to put it 77. My one go at it didn't last long.
I must admit I find it odd that Nabokov is represented twice, and Dostoevsky (Dostoevsky!) not once, nor Tolstoy. Proust, too, is conspicuously absent.
And it says "published in the English language," which the three authors I mentioned most certainly are, though perhaps they did mean originally published. It is also debatable whether or not Finnegans Wake is in English. I notice now it also says "since 1900," so that takes care of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy.
"Tell me if there are any there not worth reading...."
I'd stay away from #3 and #9 on the Reader's list, yes. (#10 actually has some merit and readability to it, coming from Hubbard's pulp days, not his post-Dianetics/rule-the-world-like-a-Bond-villain days, though, of course, it shouldn't be even in a science fiction top three hundred novels list, let alone any list of general novels.)
Generally speaking, I tend to think that unless one knows someone's individual taste quite well, it's not just arrogant to recommend someone not read a piece of fiction, it's a mistake, in a way that making a positive recommendation is not.
Basically, if one makes a positive recommendation that is followed and in error, the worst result is some wasted time by the reader; but if a negative recommendation is followed and in error, one would be missing out on, by definition, a truly worthwhile experience.
Movever, I've always found that a great many people severely over-estimate the universality of their own aesthetic preferences, and thus a vast percentage of negative recommendations, absent the aforementioned close personal familiarity, are apt to be wrong. The result may be sad.
Oh, and while there are certainly easy targets to make the mock with on the reader's list, I'd have to say that I'd call the vast majority of them excellent choices, though, sure, by no means all. (Personally, I certainly wouldn't include, for instance, King's The Stand, or Atwood's Handmaid's Tale, or Hitchhiker's Guide, let alone Hunt For Red October, for all that I'd say these books have varying sorts of worth, but clearly opinions vary, and I do find some choices, such as Nevil Shute, and de Lint's The Little Country, unexpected and pleasing.)
You must read both Powell and Proust. Each writes beautifully (although not always interestingly), but, more to the point, each burnishes the genius of his own language's snobbishness to such a high luster that it becomes attractive. Attractive, mind you - not "almost" attractive.
Of the top ten on the reader's list, four are by Ayn Rand and three are by L. Ron Hubbard.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-27-04 10:57 PM
Henderson the Rain King would not be the first Bellow I would recommend. It's good mind you, but stranger than Bellow usually is.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 12-28-04 9:11 AM
four are by Ayn Rand and three are by L. Ron Hubbard.
I just threw up in my mouth. No wonder we elected Bush.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-28-04 9:37 AM
That's a strange list in places. Deliverance? (no. 42, a virtual tie with the first Graham Greene on the list). I was startled, also, to see I, Claudius at 14.
Posted by TomF | Link to this comment | 12-28-04 10:06 AM
Apostropher, damnit, you literally did make me choke on my cofffee. Thank god the NEW laptop was spared, or I'd be putting a contract out on you.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-28-04 10:27 AM
Finnegan's Wake is on there. I'm a big fan of Joyce, but I must admit surprise that anyone can first of all understand Finnegan's Wake, and appreciate it enough to put it 77. My one go at it didn't last long.
I must admit I find it odd that Nabokov is represented twice, and Dostoevsky (Dostoevsky!) not once, nor Tolstoy. Proust, too, is conspicuously absent.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-28-04 11:44 AM
No apostrophe in Finnegans Wake.
I suspect the answer to the conundrum of the missing authors is: random house doesn't have them.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-28-04 11:51 AM
Simpler answer to missing autors: this is a list of the 100 greatest novels of the 20th century written in English.
Posted by aretino | Link to this comment | 12-28-04 11:58 AM
Actually, they have a very attractive set out In Search of Lost Time.
And it says "published in the English language," which the three authors I mentioned most certainly are, though perhaps they did mean originally published. It is also debatable whether or not Finnegans Wake is in English. I notice now it also says "since 1900," so that takes care of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-28-04 12:23 PM
Also, they have A Dance to the Music of Time, so Proust would be redundant, you see.
(I have read neither Powell nor Proust.)
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-28-04 12:34 PM
"Tell me if there are any there not worth reading...."
I'd stay away from #3 and #9 on the Reader's list, yes. (#10 actually has some merit and readability to it, coming from Hubbard's pulp days, not his post-Dianetics/rule-the-world-like-a-Bond-villain days, though, of course, it shouldn't be even in a science fiction top three hundred novels list, let alone any list of general novels.)
Generally speaking, I tend to think that unless one knows someone's individual taste quite well, it's not just arrogant to recommend someone not read a piece of fiction, it's a mistake, in a way that making a positive recommendation is not.
Basically, if one makes a positive recommendation that is followed and in error, the worst result is some wasted time by the reader; but if a negative recommendation is followed and in error, one would be missing out on, by definition, a truly worthwhile experience.
Movever, I've always found that a great many people severely over-estimate the universality of their own aesthetic preferences, and thus a vast percentage of negative recommendations, absent the aforementioned close personal familiarity, are apt to be wrong. The result may be sad.
Oh, and while there are certainly easy targets to make the mock with on the reader's list, I'd have to say that I'd call the vast majority of them excellent choices, though, sure, by no means all. (Personally, I certainly wouldn't include, for instance, King's The Stand, or Atwood's Handmaid's Tale, or Hitchhiker's Guide, let alone Hunt For Red October, for all that I'd say these books have varying sorts of worth, but clearly opinions vary, and I do find some choices, such as Nevil Shute, and de Lint's The Little Country, unexpected and pleasing.)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-28-04 4:15 PM
You must read both Powell and Proust. Each writes beautifully (although not always interestingly), but, more to the point, each burnishes the genius of his own language's snobbishness to such a high luster that it becomes attractive. Attractive, mind you - not "almost" attractive.
Posted by R J Keefe | Link to this comment | 01- 2-05 11:50 PM