I agree the Harry Potter series is an odd selection. It is certainly popular but nothing in it seems to be original, I found it distinctly lacking in charm (I couldn't start the 4th book I disliked it so much). The writing is average, I couldn't care less about the characters and it had no redeeming moral. I like those sorts of books but wouldn't put Harry Potter in the Top 25 of Sci-Fi/Fantasy. It paled in comparison to the Lord of the Rings, The various Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever, Fahrenheit 451, Dune (the first book and a half), The Foundation Trilogy, the Hobbit, the Silmarillion, A Song of Fire and Ice, the Earthsea Trilogy, the Belgariad, Watership Down, The Once and Future King, the Canterbury Tales, Beowulf, The Sword of Shannara, the Eye of the World, the Dragons of Pern, the Princess Bride, the Drawing of the Dark, the King of Elfland's Daughter, the Narnia Series, the Mists of Avalon, Redwall, 2001, The Martian Chronicles, the Titans of Siren, etc.
PHG1960 did you seriously just knock Harry Potter as unoriginal and then praise The Sword of Shannara, which is basically Lord of the Rings with the serial numbers filed off? Don't get me wrong, Terry Brooks was my gateway into fantasy literature and I have fond memories of his work, but it's hardly fair to praise him while criticizing Potter for lacking originality.
Yeah, whoever created this list needed a little distance from popular culture. I will confess to having enjoyed listening to the books with my kids. The entertainment value is there, but hundreds of other books should be ranked higher in terms of originality and social commentary.
Also I am a bit peeved I knew and tried to write Hound of Baskerville (yes I wrote it like that) and also The Scalett Letter (yeah probably with two T's) and missed both. Ultimately got 30/100, but could/should've known Tom Jones, The Idiot, Vanity Fair, The Catcher in the Rye (I missed Salinger, that's the only way I missed that!), Emma, Jane Eyre, The Last of the Mohicans, Mrs Dalloway and Jude the Obscure. Also Robert Heinlein! - most peeved I missed him, more people should get him! -- so max 40 that I knew :P
Scalett is clearly wrong and a different word. But I too am often tempted to write the hound of baskerville, that is how I originally remember(ed)/heard/learned it and have a hard time shaking it.
The books aren't even similar. I won't go into the individual merits of each, but I always find it weird how they get pigeon-holed into the same category.
I have to strongly disagree with everyone who complains about Harry Potter being on the list. While they're far from my favorite books, they're a modern landmark whose impact cannot be overstated. If anything, more modern books should be on these lists, while overrated trash like The Catcher in the Rye (yeah, I went there) should stop being promoted as classics.
I have to disagree. Harry Potter is to literature as Britney Spears is to music. Neither deserve to be on a list of all time greats. Besides, the Lord of the Rings is far superior to Harry Potter and should have been selected. And Gandalf could kick Dumbledork's butt anytime, but he's too much of a gentleman to do so.
Harry Potter was a popular series but I don't see it being remembered in a 100 years. The Lord of the Rings is the third best selling novel of all time and has been on the NYT best sellers list on several occasions spanning an era of over 40 years. LOTR has staying power because, in my opinion, it's all time classic. Harry Potter is more a best seller than a classic. The characters (for me) are forgettable and don't draw in the reader. The writing is mundane--Tolkien's style is lyrical, Rowling reads like a gossipy grocery list. At the end of each Potter book (never made it to the 4th and kept wondering why there was so much filler), I kept wondering why this was taking so long and if the writer had lost focus. George R.R. Martin is also a much better writer than Rowling although he has been torturing his readers for I don't know how many years not putting out another book.
I disagree with your assessment of Harry Potter. I'm honestly not a huge fan of Rowling's work myself - I read the novels once, found them okay, and moved on with my life - but they remain super popular and with an extremely devoted fandom that's still growing. Do I think Rowling's prose is among the best writers of today, let alone all time? No. Do I think her books will still be read and enjoyed 100 years from now? Absolutely. As a librarian who works with middle school and high school students on a daily basis, they still love these books. Saying they won't endure is like saying the (original) Star Wars movies won't endure.
I'm taking exception to your mention of Martin--I dropped out of the GoT series about 75% through book 5, because I simply could.not.take. one more use of the "c-word" to describe Every Single Woman In The Series, or one more description of Tyrion "waddling" somewhere--the poor man can't move without waddling. As for story, I actually think that Martin was sort of planning a few books, and was surprised that they took off, so he just started rambling along, killing people randomly as he went, without any clear plan except to make a lot more money selling as many books as people would buy.
I agree that some classics are just there because they are being repeated over and over, and everybody knows the titles. Regardless of if they are truely worthy of a spot.
(I guess that is how popularity goes. Most people know madonna but definately not the best singer out there. There are probably thousands of singer that havent been discovered and only sing in the shower or to their family) Promotion goes a long way over substance.
That occurred to me, too, so I Googled it. And it says that "In Cold Blood" is "a non-fiction novel". I'm kinda having trouble wrapping my head around that too.
Is there a particular reason for the proliferation of Henry James novels on this list? I'm not too familiar with his work, but I can't say it's all that well-known these days.
I'm a sucker for lists like these - thanks for making it!
Now, I just want to point out that there are Africans who write too!(Achebe, Mahfouz, Tayeb Salih, Ngugi, Coetzee, Kateb Yacine, Tsitsi Dangarembga, Ben Okri, and a ton more) And Asians. (Cao Xueqin, Lu Xun, Murasaki, Soseki, Pramoedya Ananta Toer, Tagore, Abdelrahman Munif, Yashar Kemal - this could go on forever) And Latin Americans other than Garcia Marquez as well (Borges, Neruda, Allende, Amado, Machado de Assis, Cortazar, Carpentier, and many, many more). So many great Italians, Germans, Austrians and non-Russian eastern Europeans too!
I'd encourage people to check out some of these writers' works along with the generally excellent books from this list.
Murakami once wrote something along the lines of, "when you finish reading In Search of Lost Time you know half your life has already passed." Corrections welcome!
How in the world does Agatha Christie's worst murder mystery make it onto this list? I figured the mystery out in the first 10 pages. Surely, the mysterious Affair at Styles, Murder on the Orient Express, Death on the Nile and even Curtain, etc. were better choices.
Very odd list, but it's subjective. I am surprised at how many repeats of authors show up. Most lists like this seem to select 1-2 seminal works from an author, but 4 authors (Dickens, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and James) account for 20% of the 100 best novels of all time, apparently.
Was going to make a snarky comment about it being a list of great books, not popular ones, but then I realized that Harry Potter is on it.
Seriously, "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Cry, the Beloved Country" could/should have bumped off the Nth Henry James title, "Lord Jim," or "For Whom the Bell Tolls". Among others.
This list was far from my taste and seemed to have a distinctly Euro slant to it. The Russian and German novelists bore me to tears, maybe it's a cultural thing. I'd have added To Kill a Mockingbird--the most shocking omission in my opinion, the Lord of the Rings, Sometimes a Great Notion (better than One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest), the House of the Seven Gables instead of the Scarlet Letter and in Cold Blood.
Surprised at no Alexandre Dumas on the list; personally one of my favorite novels of all-time is "The Count of Monte Cristo". I was also hoping to see "The Three Musketeers".
While I agree To Kill a Mockingbird should be added, Homer's works are considered epic poems, not novels. Nonetheless, they are all great literary works.
Ugh, how did I end up defending Harry Potter so much in these comments? I don't even like them that much, but the backlash they're getting is a little ridiculous.
I agree, I think some people think it is cool to be totally against something, which might not be as great as some people make it out to be ( bigger fandoms than you would expect) but not nearly as bad as others make it out to be. I guess they are trying to overcompensate or something, when someone says it is good, I must say it is horrible. (when in reality it is more like, not bad at all)
obviously tastes differ, but yea some reactions are over the top. Like they take it personal (same thing happens on the subject of singers, instead of simply saying they are not good or "meh" at best, they get demonised like it is the worst thing that ever happened to the world)
Maybe it is like a highschool clique thing, you must either completely for something or in the other group and completely against it. Have to pick a side to stay with the "in-crowd"
I guess it comes down to what criteria you feel should be used to gauge a novel's merit. If popularity is among them, it would be hard not to include HP. However, I suspect most commenters are inclined to stick to the intrinsic qualities of the novels.
I get that the lister loves him some Henry James, but listing him 7 times seems more than extreme. Really? No wonder the lister couldn't find room for Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse Five," or Huxley's "Brave New World!" And where is "To Kill a Mockingbird?"
Surprised to see Stendhal so little known, but glad to see him highly rated, even if I don't much like or agree with this list. It took me a while to warm to him, but his novels are very enjoyable and clever.
I was annoyed to only get half of them (worth 4 points). I believe more time is needed because some of these folks wrote LOTS of famous novels that I kept trying but didn't happen to be on your list. My literary revenge: to correct your spelling of Nathanael West (in no. 56) and Robert Heinlein (76). And doesn't it violate Jetpunk standards to leave out the accents and umlauts from Honoré de Balzac, Gabriel García Márquez and the Brontës? :)
It seems to me like the most famous works by an author aren't typically included on this list. Including Nabokov and not Lolita seems odd, as well Kipling without The Jungle Book, and Dick without Man in the High Castle. Some authors also seem over represented. I'm as big a Henry James fan as anyone else, but I'm not sure he deserves 7 spots on this list. Same with Joseph Conrad and Fyodor Dostoevsky. No hate on these authors, just seems like once they appear once on the list, they're much more likely to appear again.
Also I am a bit peeved I knew and tried to write Hound of Baskerville (yes I wrote it like that) and also The Scalett Letter (yeah probably with two T's) and missed both. Ultimately got 30/100, but could/should've known Tom Jones, The Idiot, Vanity Fair, The Catcher in the Rye (I missed Salinger, that's the only way I missed that!), Emma, Jane Eyre, The Last of the Mohicans, Mrs Dalloway and Jude the Obscure. Also Robert Heinlein! - most peeved I missed him, more people should get him! -- so max 40 that I knew :P
(I guess that is how popularity goes. Most people know madonna but definately not the best singer out there. There are probably thousands of singer that havent been discovered and only sing in the shower or to their family) Promotion goes a long way over substance.
Still, this list seems rather random and subjective.
The notion that amore than three quarters of the "100 greatest novels" are written in English is beyond ridiculous.
Why do you sometimes accept the original title and sometimes not ?
I'm french and there are many translations of "A la recherche du temps perdu". How can I do to find the one you choose ? It's just an exemple.
I'm surprised you like so much Henry James. I never read him, I'm curions now.
The list is pathetically English-centric.
Now, I just want to point out that there are Africans who write too!(Achebe, Mahfouz, Tayeb Salih, Ngugi, Coetzee, Kateb Yacine, Tsitsi Dangarembga, Ben Okri, and a ton more) And Asians. (Cao Xueqin, Lu Xun, Murasaki, Soseki, Pramoedya Ananta Toer, Tagore, Abdelrahman Munif, Yashar Kemal - this could go on forever) And Latin Americans other than Garcia Marquez as well (Borges, Neruda, Allende, Amado, Machado de Assis, Cortazar, Carpentier, and many, many more). So many great Italians, Germans, Austrians and non-Russian eastern Europeans too!
I'd encourage people to check out some of these writers' works along with the generally excellent books from this list.
But a part of me still rages that Harry Potter was placed over Hound of the Baskervilles.
This is the title used by Wordsworth Classics.
Seriously, "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Cry, the Beloved Country" could/should have bumped off the Nth Henry James title, "Lord Jim," or "For Whom the Bell Tolls". Among others.
Darn, thought something by Dumas would have made it (Count of Monte Cristo...??)
obviously tastes differ, but yea some reactions are over the top. Like they take it personal (same thing happens on the subject of singers, instead of simply saying they are not good or "meh" at best, they get demonised like it is the worst thing that ever happened to the world)