Can’t believe I read this until the point where she says Toni Morrison, Baldwin and Virginia Woolf suck… only commenting this to point out that anyone who argues that a book about the particularities of experience cannot be universal is inherently operating from a racist/sexist/ableist (all the ‘ist’ basically) standpoint. Middlemarch, Gone with the wind and Madam Bovary (all great books) are ALSO about particular experiences albeit white ones.
This is what I would comment so I will just upvote your sentiments. Also the argument for ‘universal’ themes is exhausting - who’s universe? I can understand the thirst for relatability but don’t you crave reading the unfamiliar?! Did Things Fall Apart do nothing for her? Is systemic oppression not universal?
It’s also WILDLY. UNACCEPTABLE to me that this author venerates Faulkner then completely dismisses one of his biggest influences in Woolf.
Also the part I just can’t understand is how these books aren’t relatable??? Like okay circumstantially they’re about experiences a white person may not relate to (or in the case of Virginia Woolf a heteronormative white man) but the emotions they deal with are human emotions. Like okay beloved is about the black experience but hey it’s also about haunting and being haunted and about trauma… it’s about motherhood. Mrs Dalloway too, while obviously great because of the whole stream of consciousness thing happening, is also about haunting. Giovanni’s Room (also about haunting but I’m getting repetitive lol). Emotions are part of the human condition, maybe we all have different ways to the same emotion but the emotion itself? That’s the same. I’ve written a piece about this on my Substack lol because it’s something I feel very strongly about
I wanted to return to this because when you say ‘emotions are part of the human condition’ it’s that part for me. I’ll go further and say emotions ARE the human condition, and the list offered us just features books with writers writing books about characters’ emotions about/toward/with spirit of their circumstance.
To dismiss so many because they prominently feature ‘identity’ is again a dismissal of the notion (truth) that Whiteness is ALSO. AN. IDENTITY.
This is clearly a frustrating misconception beyond American lit, but I do wonder if it’s a specific brand of American-ism that really holds this denial of whiteness as an identifier sacred. Maybe not, maybe it’s euro-prominent as well … but either way izza prrrobbblemmm
Great point. It’s so funny when people read a white persons book and think that it’s not saying something about race. Of course it is!! Take Jane Austen for instance. If you read between the lines in Mansfield Park for instance, there’s a lot there about colonialism.
I would say that, in relation to your point about America… there is a particular type of American whiteness that is definitely its own brand. I think that’s mainly because of the way history played out. Europe was involved in setting up colonies elsewhere (although for sure atrocities will have been committed on their own land) America though is a settler colony. It was concerned with wiping a land clean of its peoples before laying claim to the space. Australia is like that too.
I'm several weeks late to this thread, but I agree with everything stated here! In addition, it's important to point out that authors like Baldwin, Woolf and Morrison were incredibly innovative in style and content. Not only was Woolf one of the forerunners of the modernist literary movement (in fact, she's one of the most iconic stream of consciousness writers), but her particular style is so difficult to replicate. Same with Toni Morrison, her effortless blend of realism and magical realism is stylistically challenging to execute, and she does it with ease. I'm all for many of the authors listed in the essentials list, but to write off other authors because they "suck" demonstrates an inability to recognize or a willful rejection of literary craft and impact.
Also, I was surprised to see Margaret Atwood dismissed at a time when her cultural relevance is still so powerful. Everyone absolutely should read The Handmaid’s Tale, if only to understand the symbolism women are still adopting during protests.
Forget 100 Classics to Read Before You Die. How about 20 Classics You Should Read Right Now.
Also the Handmaids Tale (as well as the other books mentioned) is not ONLY good because it’s relevant politically. It’s also a wonderful book to read in terms of craft as are Beloved and Giovanni’s Room. The forms inform the content and vice versa. The more I think about this post the more I believe it’s rage bait
I’m new to Substack and also took a long hiatus from all social media. I’m seeing a lot of rage bait and, until you mentioned the term, I didn’t exactly know how to describe it. Thank you!
While I don't agree with all of the 100 selections, I think it is a commendable compilation. There are some missing, such as the brilliant Lord of the Rings, all three parts.
This is a more objective list than Smith's. That said, I'd wager Faulkner found himself among the untouchables not because of any politics but because of the difficulty of his prose. He's one of my favorites now, but I went around bad-mouthing him for years over Sound and Fury.
If I were to make a list of my 100 it would definitely show my gaps, but I definitely contest Blood Meridian on the 25 you can skip. McCarthy's brutal, beautiful prose warrants placement on the other list. And no Lord of the Rings?!
Interesting. When I said objective here, it was in agreement with the author's (a woman) claim to objectivity in the opening. Do you think women are more objective than men, and only take issue with my use of the word, or were you going to reply to the OP as well?
Did anybody actually read (as opposed to skim or scan) the original author's introduction to her lists? Judging from these comments, I think not. You all need to go back and read, carefully, and in detail, exactly how and where she used the words "objectively" and "subjective". Then you can all apologise to Liza for mistepresenting her.
I think nobody is objective about art and claims to the contrary are evidence of a weak mind incapable of accepting the material reality of being human.
There are both objective and subjective aspects to appreciating art. For example, there are books you and I and probably everyone in the comments would agree belong in the top 100, and there are many more we'd argue over. What I meant by my original comment was that Liza's list hits more of those commonly respected high points of literature than the list she referred to.
We’ll get ready. Grim is a word that comes to mind. Anna Karenia is so interesting to compare to say The Idiot. My only criticism is the Western focus. So many Asian books to add and one little Australian book called Cloudstreet.
Zora Neale Hurston spent the last years of her life living in my parents' hometown of Fort Pierce, FL, forced to stay in a welfare home due to poverty. There is a mural of her on one of the downtown buildings there.
I also have an original printing of Gone With the Wind from my Grandmother from 1937.
Smacks of arrogance- there are many choices I agree with, some I don't, but to claim you have identified an objective list of the 100 greatest literary works is hubris.
I'm not going to comment on the big list, but the Don't Bother With list is chockablock with books I greatly admire. Here are a few: The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, North and South [or WIVES AND DAUGHTERS, 1866], To the Lighthouse, Beloved, Sula, Walden, Never Let Me Go, The Awakening, Song of Solomon. I won't argue about BLOOD MERIDIAN, because it's a tough read, and because, although I'm an ardent McCarthy fan, I don't proselytize about his work [SUTTREE is my favorite novel, of anyone's]--it's not for everyone, especially BLOOD MERIDIAN. The rest of the ones I plucked out would leave a big hole in my reading, and I wouldn't wish missing those books on anyone.
Same! I literally named my Substack after Walden because it impacted me that much. While I acknowledge that Thoreau got very long-winded in some parts, all the same it dramatically impacted me in a way that I've been thinking about it ever since. I also think a reason I liked it so much was because I read it after reading Amusing Ourselves to Death, Digital Minimalism, and Brave New World. The idea of simplifying your life down to the bare necessities in an attempt to experience the world without any distractions or hindrances was revolutionary even then and it feels like an almost-impossible fever dream now.
On that note, does our literary diet can impact how we feel about a book? Obviously other contextual factors play a part: your life as it currently stands, maybe your own socioeconomic situation, how bored you are, the way you're reacting to current events around you, what your friends and family are talking about, the third season of The Bear, etc. Who knows? Maybe Liza would've liked Walden better if she had read it under different circumstances.
Maybe I'm reading into it too much. But I can feel very differently about a book I loved at 14 vs 34, so I don't think it's a total reach.
I want to be your friend!!! Never known anyone who read Amusing Ourselves to Death! Brave New World shook me to the core and I read all of these at a very impressionable age. They all shaped my world view in profound ways. And Walden on the don't bother list?? PLEASE!
Thank you for your wonderful (and unexpected!) reply. The Road might be my favorite book, one of them anyway, and i'm a big fan of his writing - the way he put words together, esp given the images the words conjure, is shockingly gorgeous, at times thrilling. Interestingly, The Road is by comparison underwritten.
I am southern through and through, and maybe I know my region too well - its grace as well as its poverty, degeneration, disintegration, which I find painful. Maybe the long and the short of it is that I didn,t understand Suttree, why he lived as he did, given who he seemed to me. He seemed determined to throw himself away for no good reason and a grail of social waste really annoys me. His reactions made sense to me, but not his why. I've been puzzling over this character since I read the book a couple of years ago.
Thanks for responding, Ann. I think the answer lies in picking apart your hatred. What's it made of? Why do I revere the novel? You have to be able to love really dark humor, I think. Harrogate is a real piece of work--he's the character actor you laugh at--the watermelons, the boat made of car hoods, poisoning bats . . . Suttree himself is a complex construction--a guy raised in privilege but for various reasons living in the underclass, getting by, experiencing pain, surviving, trying to let a little grace into his life. This is too small a space to say much. But as a writer I love reading the prose of SUTTREE, page by page--the precision of the description, the leaps from word to word--he has the ability to write low/profane/slangy lines and next to them to use made-up words, archaic words, gorgeously strange combinations of words--the language sounds almost Elizabethan at times. One reason I read--other than for the sentences, which is a big part of it for me (and the voice overall) is to be taken to a place I don't know,i to experience something other than my own life--the time and place, the social milieu of SUTTREE holds me--the river and how the people along it conducted their lives, got by, at that time. It's important to understand that I'm not trying to sell you on the novel--we like what we like. I no doubt don't like some you revere. That's just how it is. But--back to where I started this--you might get more clarity on your reaction to the book if you tease apart the threads of what you call hatred. Some books make us feel sort of contaminated--war novels full of gore and cruelty and so on. Some books don't have enough of what we require--beauty, human goodness, surprise, strangeness . . . whatever the bottom line stuff is for us. I've read so much and have faced the blank page myself that I tend to admire books that are one of a kind, that show me what I've never seen, that are really smart, line by line, that stick some needles in me . . . but my needs as a reader aren't going to be the same as someone else's. The darkness that tickles me may make you cringe. Art is supposed to engender complex/divergent reactions, right? Anyway, I'm being way too long-winded here. I just think that looking at what upsets you about the book more closely and seeing how those things interact with "not putting it down" and "haunting" might be illuminating.
Good morning! Woke up thinking about Suttree, how different he was from Marilyn Robinson's Jack. Suttree had starch and the integrity of free choice, while Jack seemed to me a spineless victim. i realized that I hated Suttree's book but not the character. I hated Jack's book and also the character. I loved Lila's book and her character too.
Thanks for prompting an interesting conversation with myself!
Indeed. She believes in social order and duty so is more likely a conservative than a libertarian. But you shall have interesting conversations together.
You criticize Smith for relying on themes, but say that Virginia Woolf sucks because of her themes. I can't let The Woman in White (the 19th century equivalent of Harlan Coben) over To the Lighthouse stand without speaking up. Personally, I prioritize prose over everything. But I agree with the spirit of this post.
I agree with your opinion of Giovanni's Room. But Go Tell It on the Mountain is a top 5 coming-of-age novel for me. I still think about its more hallucinatory passages 10 years later.
I would love to see a takedown of Blood Meridian. I hate McCarthy.
Also, I love that you included Gone with the Wind. I can hear the pearl-clutching from here. But that novel was my gateway drug to literature.
I actually enjoyed The Scarlet Letter when I read it in school, possibly the only assigned book that I enjoyed. I know it’s not a novel but Leaves of Grass is spectacular. Oh, Catcher in the Rye SUCKS.
I found The Scarlet Letter fascinating, and try to encourage others towards it. Catcher in the Rye is the only classic I’ve read so far that felt like a waste of my time. And I’m 60+ , with a large percentage of classics read. 😏
The main character in Giovanni’s Room is white. Yes, Baldwin wrote it but it’s not, in any way, about race since it doesn’t have a black character in it. If you missed this important aspect of the book I don’t know how anyone can take any of your thoughts on classic literature seriously.
Mansfield Park is one of the bravest things Austen wrote and Fanny Price is sheer rock 'n' roll. That's the hill I will die upon ;) An introverted heroine snatched away from her parents under false motives, who dares asking questions about her uncles doings in Antigua (and his slaves) whereas she is supposed to be subservient and grateful for all her pain. And the first chapter is a masterclass of irony.
However I looove your list. It's about time the Master and Margerita got the recognotion it deserves.
I never read Faulkner so I will put him on my list!
Jane Austin is a wonderful writer. My wife did English literature and jokes all the books are the same but in a good way. She is so funny, observant and has the most beautiful prose. Her personal story is also really interesting. There is a wonderful BBC Documentary by Lucy (I forget her last name) which is very touching. When Mr. Bennett tells Elizabeth to not marry the idiot vicar I think it was a great example of paternal love.
Can’t believe I read this until the point where she says Toni Morrison, Baldwin and Virginia Woolf suck… only commenting this to point out that anyone who argues that a book about the particularities of experience cannot be universal is inherently operating from a racist/sexist/ableist (all the ‘ist’ basically) standpoint. Middlemarch, Gone with the wind and Madam Bovary (all great books) are ALSO about particular experiences albeit white ones.
This is what I would comment so I will just upvote your sentiments. Also the argument for ‘universal’ themes is exhausting - who’s universe? I can understand the thirst for relatability but don’t you crave reading the unfamiliar?! Did Things Fall Apart do nothing for her? Is systemic oppression not universal?
It’s also WILDLY. UNACCEPTABLE to me that this author venerates Faulkner then completely dismisses one of his biggest influences in Woolf.
And no Joan Didion? Bye.
Also the part I just can’t understand is how these books aren’t relatable??? Like okay circumstantially they’re about experiences a white person may not relate to (or in the case of Virginia Woolf a heteronormative white man) but the emotions they deal with are human emotions. Like okay beloved is about the black experience but hey it’s also about haunting and being haunted and about trauma… it’s about motherhood. Mrs Dalloway too, while obviously great because of the whole stream of consciousness thing happening, is also about haunting. Giovanni’s Room (also about haunting but I’m getting repetitive lol). Emotions are part of the human condition, maybe we all have different ways to the same emotion but the emotion itself? That’s the same. I’ve written a piece about this on my Substack lol because it’s something I feel very strongly about
I wanted to return to this because when you say ‘emotions are part of the human condition’ it’s that part for me. I’ll go further and say emotions ARE the human condition, and the list offered us just features books with writers writing books about characters’ emotions about/toward/with spirit of their circumstance.
To dismiss so many because they prominently feature ‘identity’ is again a dismissal of the notion (truth) that Whiteness is ALSO. AN. IDENTITY.
This is clearly a frustrating misconception beyond American lit, but I do wonder if it’s a specific brand of American-ism that really holds this denial of whiteness as an identifier sacred. Maybe not, maybe it’s euro-prominent as well … but either way izza prrrobbblemmm
Great point. It’s so funny when people read a white persons book and think that it’s not saying something about race. Of course it is!! Take Jane Austen for instance. If you read between the lines in Mansfield Park for instance, there’s a lot there about colonialism.
I would say that, in relation to your point about America… there is a particular type of American whiteness that is definitely its own brand. I think that’s mainly because of the way history played out. Europe was involved in setting up colonies elsewhere (although for sure atrocities will have been committed on their own land) America though is a settler colony. It was concerned with wiping a land clean of its peoples before laying claim to the space. Australia is like that too.
I'm several weeks late to this thread, but I agree with everything stated here! In addition, it's important to point out that authors like Baldwin, Woolf and Morrison were incredibly innovative in style and content. Not only was Woolf one of the forerunners of the modernist literary movement (in fact, she's one of the most iconic stream of consciousness writers), but her particular style is so difficult to replicate. Same with Toni Morrison, her effortless blend of realism and magical realism is stylistically challenging to execute, and she does it with ease. I'm all for many of the authors listed in the essentials list, but to write off other authors because they "suck" demonstrates an inability to recognize or a willful rejection of literary craft and impact.
Exactly.
Also, I was surprised to see Margaret Atwood dismissed at a time when her cultural relevance is still so powerful. Everyone absolutely should read The Handmaid’s Tale, if only to understand the symbolism women are still adopting during protests.
Forget 100 Classics to Read Before You Die. How about 20 Classics You Should Read Right Now.
Also the Handmaids Tale (as well as the other books mentioned) is not ONLY good because it’s relevant politically. It’s also a wonderful book to read in terms of craft as are Beloved and Giovanni’s Room. The forms inform the content and vice versa. The more I think about this post the more I believe it’s rage bait
Rage bait is exactly the term for it.
I’m new to Substack and also took a long hiatus from all social media. I’m seeing a lot of rage bait and, until you mentioned the term, I didn’t exactly know how to describe it. Thank you!
Thank you for clarifying this point! Rage-baiting!
When they started with 'liberal' I knew we were going down hill
While I don't agree with all of the 100 selections, I think it is a commendable compilation. There are some missing, such as the brilliant Lord of the Rings, all three parts.
Agreed. One of the only books/trilogies of the 20th century I feel confident will be read and celebrated 500 years from now.
No doubt, Andy. In point of fact, I read LoTR once every year just to restore and confirm that which is greater than myself! It is genius!
And… Candide is such a great humorous coming of age adventure story! I would include it.
LoTR is okay but frankly, the writing in Harry Potter is better.
But two absolute classics:
The Foundation series by Asimov
Stranger in a Strange Land by Heinlein
It has six parts, published in three volumes. It is also an example of a book that is better than the writing it contains.
This is a more objective list than Smith's. That said, I'd wager Faulkner found himself among the untouchables not because of any politics but because of the difficulty of his prose. He's one of my favorites now, but I went around bad-mouthing him for years over Sound and Fury.
If I were to make a list of my 100 it would definitely show my gaps, but I definitely contest Blood Meridian on the 25 you can skip. McCarthy's brutal, beautiful prose warrants placement on the other list. And no Lord of the Rings?!
“Objective”??
“””””objective”””””””???????
The need of men to feel that their emotional opinions are rational will never cease to fill me with profound amazement.
I think he just meant a list more based on consensus-agreed quality and depth vs ideology and political bias.
Interesting. When I said objective here, it was in agreement with the author's (a woman) claim to objectivity in the opening. Do you think women are more objective than men, and only take issue with my use of the word, or were you going to reply to the OP as well?
Did anybody actually read (as opposed to skim or scan) the original author's introduction to her lists? Judging from these comments, I think not. You all need to go back and read, carefully, and in detail, exactly how and where she used the words "objectively" and "subjective". Then you can all apologise to Liza for mistepresenting her.
I think nobody is objective about art and claims to the contrary are evidence of a weak mind incapable of accepting the material reality of being human.
There are both objective and subjective aspects to appreciating art. For example, there are books you and I and probably everyone in the comments would agree belong in the top 100, and there are many more we'd argue over. What I meant by my original comment was that Liza's list hits more of those commonly respected high points of literature than the list she referred to.
Agree. Blood Meridian is a masterpiece. End of. ;)
I love Faulkner. I have yet to tackle Russian literature. My path is now clear.
We’ll get ready. Grim is a word that comes to mind. Anna Karenia is so interesting to compare to say The Idiot. My only criticism is the Western focus. So many Asian books to add and one little Australian book called Cloudstreet.
Lord of the Rings on the 100 or the 25?
100!
Liza kinda meets us in the middle on Proust by only picking Swann's Way.
Maybe we could the same on Tolkien and call it a day at The Hobbit? :)
I'm afraid LotR is non-negotiable!
Really? Toni Morrison sucks? Wow. Ouch. Why???
Right with you. I think she’s fantastic!
I haven't read much of Morrison but from what I have read I honestly was never impressed.
Putting Blood Meridian on a list of books to skip is the wildest thing I have ever seen on the internet.
Never read Blood Meridian, but reading The Road has forever made me a fan of McCarthy.
Same
Ulysses and Mrs Dalloway should be on there. It’s pretty recent, but My Brilliant Friend could stand the test of time.
Re: "Their Eyes Are Watching God":
Zora Neale Hurston spent the last years of her life living in my parents' hometown of Fort Pierce, FL, forced to stay in a welfare home due to poverty. There is a mural of her on one of the downtown buildings there.
I also have an original printing of Gone With the Wind from my Grandmother from 1937.
Smacks of arrogance- there are many choices I agree with, some I don't, but to claim you have identified an objective list of the 100 greatest literary works is hubris.
Indeed!!!!
I'm not going to comment on the big list, but the Don't Bother With list is chockablock with books I greatly admire. Here are a few: The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, North and South [or WIVES AND DAUGHTERS, 1866], To the Lighthouse, Beloved, Sula, Walden, Never Let Me Go, The Awakening, Song of Solomon. I won't argue about BLOOD MERIDIAN, because it's a tough read, and because, although I'm an ardent McCarthy fan, I don't proselytize about his work [SUTTREE is my favorite novel, of anyone's]--it's not for everyone, especially BLOOD MERIDIAN. The rest of the ones I plucked out would leave a big hole in my reading, and I wouldn't wish missing those books on anyone.
Same! I literally named my Substack after Walden because it impacted me that much. While I acknowledge that Thoreau got very long-winded in some parts, all the same it dramatically impacted me in a way that I've been thinking about it ever since. I also think a reason I liked it so much was because I read it after reading Amusing Ourselves to Death, Digital Minimalism, and Brave New World. The idea of simplifying your life down to the bare necessities in an attempt to experience the world without any distractions or hindrances was revolutionary even then and it feels like an almost-impossible fever dream now.
On that note, does our literary diet can impact how we feel about a book? Obviously other contextual factors play a part: your life as it currently stands, maybe your own socioeconomic situation, how bored you are, the way you're reacting to current events around you, what your friends and family are talking about, the third season of The Bear, etc. Who knows? Maybe Liza would've liked Walden better if she had read it under different circumstances.
Maybe I'm reading into it too much. But I can feel very differently about a book I loved at 14 vs 34, so I don't think it's a total reach.
I want to be your friend!!! Never known anyone who read Amusing Ourselves to Death! Brave New World shook me to the core and I read all of these at a very impressionable age. They all shaped my world view in profound ways. And Walden on the don't bother list?? PLEASE!
It seems rather dismissive, no?
YES. Especially at the end...and the beginning, oh and the middle too.
Thank you for your wonderful (and unexpected!) reply. The Road might be my favorite book, one of them anyway, and i'm a big fan of his writing - the way he put words together, esp given the images the words conjure, is shockingly gorgeous, at times thrilling. Interestingly, The Road is by comparison underwritten.
I am southern through and through, and maybe I know my region too well - its grace as well as its poverty, degeneration, disintegration, which I find painful. Maybe the long and the short of it is that I didn,t understand Suttree, why he lived as he did, given who he seemed to me. He seemed determined to throw himself away for no good reason and a grail of social waste really annoys me. His reactions made sense to me, but not his why. I've been puzzling over this character since I read the book a couple of years ago.
I hated Suttree but couldn’t put it down. Haunting. Why.
Thanks for responding, Ann. I think the answer lies in picking apart your hatred. What's it made of? Why do I revere the novel? You have to be able to love really dark humor, I think. Harrogate is a real piece of work--he's the character actor you laugh at--the watermelons, the boat made of car hoods, poisoning bats . . . Suttree himself is a complex construction--a guy raised in privilege but for various reasons living in the underclass, getting by, experiencing pain, surviving, trying to let a little grace into his life. This is too small a space to say much. But as a writer I love reading the prose of SUTTREE, page by page--the precision of the description, the leaps from word to word--he has the ability to write low/profane/slangy lines and next to them to use made-up words, archaic words, gorgeously strange combinations of words--the language sounds almost Elizabethan at times. One reason I read--other than for the sentences, which is a big part of it for me (and the voice overall) is to be taken to a place I don't know,i to experience something other than my own life--the time and place, the social milieu of SUTTREE holds me--the river and how the people along it conducted their lives, got by, at that time. It's important to understand that I'm not trying to sell you on the novel--we like what we like. I no doubt don't like some you revere. That's just how it is. But--back to where I started this--you might get more clarity on your reaction to the book if you tease apart the threads of what you call hatred. Some books make us feel sort of contaminated--war novels full of gore and cruelty and so on. Some books don't have enough of what we require--beauty, human goodness, surprise, strangeness . . . whatever the bottom line stuff is for us. I've read so much and have faced the blank page myself that I tend to admire books that are one of a kind, that show me what I've never seen, that are really smart, line by line, that stick some needles in me . . . but my needs as a reader aren't going to be the same as someone else's. The darkness that tickles me may make you cringe. Art is supposed to engender complex/divergent reactions, right? Anyway, I'm being way too long-winded here. I just think that looking at what upsets you about the book more closely and seeing how those things interact with "not putting it down" and "haunting" might be illuminating.
Good morning! Woke up thinking about Suttree, how different he was from Marilyn Robinson's Jack. Suttree had starch and the integrity of free choice, while Jack seemed to me a spineless victim. i realized that I hated Suttree's book but not the character. I hated Jack's book and also the character. I loved Lila's book and her character too.
Thanks for prompting an interesting conversation with myself!
Do you teach as well as write?
Ann: Wanna email? I'm: fallboy52@hotmail.com If not lemme know here and I'll respond.
No room for Confederacy of Dunces?
It was WONDERFUL!!!
There’s one I had trouble getting into. Maybe I’ll give it another try.
Where is Jane Austen's Sense & Sensibility?! There is much to learn from heroine Elinor Dashwood on honour, comportment and rationality!
Miss Dashwood speaks to all of us.
Indeed. She believes in social order and duty so is more likely a conservative than a libertarian. But you shall have interesting conversations together.
47/100 and 9/25 read here.
You criticize Smith for relying on themes, but say that Virginia Woolf sucks because of her themes. I can't let The Woman in White (the 19th century equivalent of Harlan Coben) over To the Lighthouse stand without speaking up. Personally, I prioritize prose over everything. But I agree with the spirit of this post.
I agree with your opinion of Giovanni's Room. But Go Tell It on the Mountain is a top 5 coming-of-age novel for me. I still think about its more hallucinatory passages 10 years later.
I would love to see a takedown of Blood Meridian. I hate McCarthy.
Also, I love that you included Gone with the Wind. I can hear the pearl-clutching from here. But that novel was my gateway drug to literature.
If you like prose try The English Patient.
I actually enjoyed The Scarlet Letter when I read it in school, possibly the only assigned book that I enjoyed. I know it’s not a novel but Leaves of Grass is spectacular. Oh, Catcher in the Rye SUCKS.
I found The Scarlet Letter fascinating, and try to encourage others towards it. Catcher in the Rye is the only classic I’ve read so far that felt like a waste of my time. And I’m 60+ , with a large percentage of classics read. 😏
I didn't read Scarlet Letter in high school and wouldn't have liked it if I had, but I did read it in my early 30s and loved it.
It kills me.
I've read 33 of your 100, and 5 of your 25.
It's an interesting list.
There are many titles among your 100 that I look at and think, "Yes, that's a helluva book, and no, there is no way I am going to read it."
Be well!
Ahh! You beat me by 3. I have read 30 of them. Not bad for us both: About 1/3rd of the list!
The main character in Giovanni’s Room is white. Yes, Baldwin wrote it but it’s not, in any way, about race since it doesn’t have a black character in it. If you missed this important aspect of the book I don’t know how anyone can take any of your thoughts on classic literature seriously.
I agree, none of the characters in this great book are black. And what difference would it really make?
Exactly my point!
Mansfield Park is one of the bravest things Austen wrote and Fanny Price is sheer rock 'n' roll. That's the hill I will die upon ;) An introverted heroine snatched away from her parents under false motives, who dares asking questions about her uncles doings in Antigua (and his slaves) whereas she is supposed to be subservient and grateful for all her pain. And the first chapter is a masterclass of irony.
However I looove your list. It's about time the Master and Margerita got the recognotion it deserves.
I never read Faulkner so I will put him on my list!
Jane Austin is a wonderful writer. My wife did English literature and jokes all the books are the same but in a good way. She is so funny, observant and has the most beautiful prose. Her personal story is also really interesting. There is a wonderful BBC Documentary by Lucy (I forget her last name) which is very touching. When Mr. Bennett tells Elizabeth to not marry the idiot vicar I think it was a great example of paternal love.