Time Magazine's All-Time 100 Novels
Time Magazine's All-Time best 100 English language Novels from 1923 to 2005.
http://www.time.com/time/2005/100book...
http://www.time.com/time/2005/100book...
List Challenge
The average Goodreads member has read 12 out of 100 books on this list — how many have you read?
The average Goodreads member has read 12 out of 100 books on this list — how many have you read?
Get Results & Compare With Friends »
Laurel
3634 books
363 friends
363 friends
Miranda
15 books
4 friends
4 friends
Phillip
5329 books
139 friends
139 friends
Greyweather
2661 books
66 friends
66 friends
Diane
17924 books
204 friends
204 friends
Leslie
903 books
26 friends
26 friends
Toni
3153 books
58 friends
58 friends
Katie
677 books
23 friends
23 friends
More voters…
Comments Showing 1-50 of 137 (137 new)
message 1:
by
Greyweather
(new)
Aug 01, 2009 04:26PM
Removed two books that weren't on Time's list, added two books that were on Time's list which were missing, and changed The Catcher in the Rye to the English language title.
reply
|
flag
Removed for not being on the Time list:
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, by J.K. Rowling
The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood
The Year of the Hare, by Arto Paasilinna
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, by J.K. Rowling
The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood
The Year of the Hare, by Arto Paasilinna
To Kill a Mockingbird is good, but seriously its not the greatest book ever. It's amazing yes, but i think about 50% of these books are better than it. Same with Lord of the Rings. With 1984, i'd say it should be around number 15. Lolita should be number one. Great Gatsby number 2.
To Kill a Mockingbird and Lord of the Rings both do well because they are very popular and a lot of voters have read and liked them.
Your own votes could, of course, change the specific rankings.
What bothers me is 104 books on a supposedly 100-book list.
Your own votes could, of course, change the specific rankings.
What bothers me is 104 books on a supposedly 100-book list.
Removed for not being on the list:
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, by J.K. Rowling
A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, by Betty Smith
Girl in Translation, by Jean Kwok
Tuesdays with Morrie, by Mitch Albom
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, by J.K. Rowling
A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, by Betty Smith
Girl in Translation, by Jean Kwok
Tuesdays with Morrie, by Mitch Albom
Mike wrote: ""all-time best ... from 1923 to 2005"
contradictory, no?"
My reaction exactly. Either they're the all-time best novels, or they're the best novels from 1923 to 2005. They can't be both.
contradictory, no?"
My reaction exactly. Either they're the all-time best novels, or they're the best novels from 1923 to 2005. They can't be both.
Time somehow missed "Ulysses" and "Finnegan's Wake," which are clearly genius works of the English language. However, this list focuses on great English language novels and, if it drives readers in droves to it, then this list serves a highly valued purpose.
David wrote: "Time somehow missed "Ulysses" and "Finnegan's Wake," which are clearly genius works of the English language. However, this list focuses on great English language novels and, if it drives readers in..."
I had wondered that too (It's also missing "Zuleika Dobson" and "Main Street"). Then I realized that the list only included books from 1923 to 2005.
I had wondered that too (It's also missing "Zuleika Dobson" and "Main Street"). Then I realized that the list only included books from 1923 to 2005.
These titles all seem to have made the Modern Library's List of the "Top 100 Novels of the 20th Century," another English language list which I very much prefer, at http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/.... Perhaps, Goodreads also will post downstream this enduring and scholarly list for serious readers of literary novels. I certainly value your selections and would much prefer them to several titles that now appear on the useful list: it's wonderful of Goodreads to point readers toward it. I also have posted on my blog a Top 100 List which includes non-English language titles from Proust, Tolstoy, Cervantes, Kafka, Dostoyevsky, Camus, Fuentes, Musil, Saramago and many others at: http://wordsworthgreenwi.hubpages.com...
Thank you for the benefit of your insight and elegant literary taste.
Thank you for the benefit of your insight and elegant literary taste.
David, there are already lists for both the Readers' and Critics' versions of the Modern Library 100: http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/93... and http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/87... .
A really strange list - how was it compiled? No Jane Austen, no Charles Dickens, no Joseph Conrad? Really?
Only when you get right to the end do you discover that "all" time does not include any time before 1923, or after 2005. Are the people at Time magazine really stupid enough to believe that before 1923 and after 2005 there was no time? Are we now, post-2005, living in a timeless state?
This must be one of the top 100 all-time stupid lists, from now until forever, in either direction.
Only when you get right to the end do you discover that "all" time does not include any time before 1923, or after 2005. Are the people at Time magazine really stupid enough to believe that before 1923 and after 2005 there was no time? Are we now, post-2005, living in a timeless state?
This must be one of the top 100 all-time stupid lists, from now until forever, in either direction.
From the Time Magazine's website (http://www.time.com/time/specials/pac...
"The parameters: English language novels published anywhere in the world since 1923, the year that TIME Magazine began, which, before you ask, means that Ulysses (1922) doesn't make the cut.
[...]
Lists like this one have two purposes. One is to instruct. The other of course is to enrage. We're bracing ourselves for the e-mails that start out: "You moron! You pathetic bourgeoise insect! How could you have left off...(insert title here)." We say Mrs. Dalloway. You say Mrs. Bridge. We say Naked Lunch. You say Breakfast at Tiffanys. Let's call the whole thing off? Just the opposite—bring it on. Sometimes judgment is best formed under fire. But please, no e-mails about Ulysses. Rules are rules."
"The parameters: English language novels published anywhere in the world since 1923, the year that TIME Magazine began, which, before you ask, means that Ulysses (1922) doesn't make the cut.
[...]
Lists like this one have two purposes. One is to instruct. The other of course is to enrage. We're bracing ourselves for the e-mails that start out: "You moron! You pathetic bourgeoise insect! How could you have left off...(insert title here)." We say Mrs. Dalloway. You say Mrs. Bridge. We say Naked Lunch. You say Breakfast at Tiffanys. Let's call the whole thing off? Just the opposite—bring it on. Sometimes judgment is best formed under fire. But please, no e-mails about Ulysses. Rules are rules."
On behalf of avid readers everywhere I would offer that Goodreads performs a great service in its mission to point multitudes to the hundreds of immortal, literary masterpieces appearing on these thoughtful lists. Well done, Goodreads.
Themis-Athena wrote: "From the Time Magazine's website (http://www.time.com/time/specials/pac...
"The parameters: English language novels published anywhere in the wo..."
But why do they they say "all-time"?
"The parameters: English language novels published anywhere in the wo..."
But why do they they say "all-time"?
Odd choice, true; might possibly just be due to the fact that many comparable lists actually claim (with about the same amount of justification, i.e., none, and with no discernibly set parameters whatever) to represent "so-and-so-publication's list of all time best books/novels/literature." I'm guessing, though -- ultimately only the creators of the list would be able to answer that question. Why don't you drop them a line and ask?
Ugh, this list is so heavy with male authors, and misses some really great works of fiction by female authors! Sigh.
Stephen wrote: "But why do they say "all-time"?"
Because it's the name of their magazine, that's all.
People are really taking this list too seriously, it's just two people's opinions and their favorite books from 1923 to 2005; nothing more.
As for the 'top book,' Time never ranked them, they just listed 100 books. On their website, the books appear alphabetically.
Because it's the name of their magazine, that's all.
People are really taking this list too seriously, it's just two people's opinions and their favorite books from 1923 to 2005; nothing more.
As for the 'top book,' Time never ranked them, they just listed 100 books. On their website, the books appear alphabetically.
David wrote: "Time somehow missed "Ulysses" and "Finnegan's Wake," which are clearly genius works of the English language. However, this list focuses on great English language novels and, if it drives readers in..."
Ulysses didn't come out after 1923, and this list is about the books from 1923 to 2005. Agreed on Finnegan's Wake though. Now that was some wicked novel.
Ulysses didn't come out after 1923, and this list is about the books from 1923 to 2005. Agreed on Finnegan's Wake though. Now that was some wicked novel.
Courtney wrote: "Ugh, this list is so heavy with male authors, and misses some really great works of fiction by female authors! Sigh."
Dear Courtney,
Amen, sister.
You go, girl.
Cordially,
David
Dear Courtney,
Amen, sister.
You go, girl.
Cordially,
David
What use is this list if we can't add to our votes? I don't understand the point of not being able to vote repeatedly....
Read 15, really enjoyed 2, never even heard of several. All-time (or even a-little-slice-of-time) best classics? Not in my world. :-)
Like everyone else said, Ulysses definitely belongs here. While it's not my favorite novel, I'm about halfway through it right now, and so far I can hardly think of a stronger candidate for best of the century in terms of sheer scope, audacity, formal innovation, emotional content, depth of character, humor... don't get me wrong, this is a pretty good list on a whole (a lot I've been meaning to read here, and many favorites as well), but it should take the place of the dreary and almost entirely worthless Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.
Oh, since 1923, okay. That makes a little more sense. I wonder if they made that cutoff date strictly so the default pick for "best novel of the 20th century" wouldn't make it, which would be an interesting perspective...
Chris wrote: "Oh, since 1923, okay. That makes a little more sense. I wonder if they made that cutoff date strictly so the default pick for "best novel of the 20th century" wouldn't make it, which would be an in..."
No, I think 1923 is the year that Time Magazine came out. That's why they do it from 1923.
No, I think 1923 is the year that Time Magazine came out. That's why they do it from 1923.
Ben wrote: "I think 1923 is the year that Time Magazine came out. That's why they do it from 1923."
Yep -- in any event, that's the explanation they give.
Yep -- in any event, that's the explanation they give.
read 8 of the top 12 (if its based on ranking)...awesome me :)
Avinash wrote: "read 8 of the top 12 (if its based on ranking)...awesome me :)"
Time's list isn't ranked, but it is here on the amount of votes - so technically it is logical that you would've read more of the books at the top of the list as they are the most popular/well known.
Time's list isn't ranked, but it is here on the amount of votes - so technically it is logical that you would've read more of the books at the top of the list as they are the most popular/well known.
I havent even heard of a huge amount of these books...and a lot of the best classic novels are not even on here. Cant say I even come close to agreeing that these are the best of all time
Related News
A daring workplace caper at an upstate New York big-box store. A heartfelt coming-of-age story in 1950s Puerto Rico. Tragedy and triumph during...
This is a static list.