Comments on Best Books of the 20th Century - page 8
Comments Showing 351-400 of 511 (511 new)
Mohammad wrote: "I would say that it is tentamount to a disgrace to the all time greats like Kafka and John Steinbeck to list them in teh same league with Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. For this reason alone, ..."---
Whatever we think about its literary merits (and I do admire "Lord of the Rings") it delivers valid insights to the attitudes of those who decided the Great Wars were worth fighting. It helps answer questions about why the 20th century was shaped the way it was and why politics evolved the way it did. While acknowledging the virtues of the elite and of tradition, it makes a powerful argument that those days are passing, that the common man is in the process of inheriting the earth and that this change is a good thing.
Checked for duplicates: 6 books removed.
Checked for duplicates: 2 books removed.
NO GRAHAM GREENE, HUNTER S. THOMPSON , OR CORMAC McCARTHY.The world.is.fucked.up.and.going.to.shit.. all.you.people.are.turning.to.retards. I swear to the fuckn death of me. especially if you believe the bible is literally true and you're older than 10, you are a fucking idiot. period.
So while I am able to add a book I feel should be on the list I cannot remove a book that ought not be on the list because of its original publication date? That's not good, but I think what irritated me even more was finding the Walt Disney Company versions of other writer's stories on this list (whatever century they were published). It reduces a very long list already punctured with errors of the most glaring sort to a roster from a dystopian publishing catalogue that didn't balk at including "Fahrenheit 451" but alas gives weight to the argument that if books shouldn't be burned, at least lists of books ought to be when they add so little to the appreciation of literature and leave book lovers frothing in impotent fury. I note that the first comments were made in 2008, the year no doubt this list first appeared. In the years since, the risible mistakes are still listed while eligible and compelling books remain omitted. Why? Perhaps this is not actually the list it presents itself to be. Instead, I wonder if it's not an initial screening tool by the NSA to determine if a person's emails or texts should be monitored; after all, the creator of the list him or herself has already been "deleted". This idea gains strength when it seems I am not looking at the same list as others making comments. There are books on the list by Hunter S. Thompson, Cormac McCarthy and Graham Greene...at least on the list I see. Whether their works fit this specific list is a chronological problem, but their books are listed. At least on the list I am viewing. Perhaps the list modifies itself every 15 minutes or perhaps, based on the first 2 or 3 selections by the User, it changes into a different list altogether. Sort of a Briggs-Meyer literary-personality inventory designed to weed out those who think too much about reading -- a sure indication that they do read -- which in itself can be a threat to those who'd prefer we look at "pretty" pictures (like the Disney books have) and enjoy them enough to feel like taking a nap. I can feel myself getting sleepy as I type. If I am "deleted" by the time you read this, and you are feeling a bit sleepy, pinch yourself and start an alternate list. An accurate and inclusive list of books (books that do actually fit the title/dateline of your list). Please, in memory of those of us who may have been "deleted", don't include books of classic stories that are "authored" by the Disney Company. Even Walt wouldn't have voted for them. And he wasn't even deleted, just frozen.
JLieutenis wrote: "So while I am able to add a book I feel should be on the list I cannot remove a book that ought not be on the list because of its original publication date? That's not good, but I think what irrit..."A few things to consider:
1. This list HAS been significantly altered since it was begun. Voting does that. So does culling by librarians. In my opinion the availability of multiple editions of a work waters down the vote. The newest hits are thus likelier to get a disproportionately high place on the list, because for the older works, people often add variant editions or compilations from their lists, others vote them up, then a librarian deletes them as duplicates.
2. With over 6,000 books on the list, many readers comment based on the top 100 and don't really scroll through the whole list.
3. People sometimes don't notice that they are voting for a children's or a movie version. I have seen many lists where people were voting up Abridged Shakespeare or "The Declaration of Independence" and not noting that the works were not the classic works.
4. This list is not and cannot be the final word on the canon of the 20th Century. It is a survey, not a reading list. I am an English major and teacher and I find some works that are considered "classic" to be crap--Dreiser, Faulkner, etc. But I have my own list that friends and students can view on my profile. 5. Everyone can add 100 books, so add the "omitted" ones. If you think someone is deleting inappropriately, post a remark on the librarians page. If there are books that are from the wrong century, note them here and I will delete them. Happy reading!
Checked for duplicates: 1 book removed.
Checked for duplicates: 4 books removed.
Burroughs was in the front row alone in his financed (by Adding Machine Family Fortune)to observe and 'Write' about it.He's the only Self described Junk Bomb who made constant refearences to Sex.Heroin is the most passionate Love/Sex a person can experience alone.That and back than the Narcs were new to the game and quickly took pay offs from Street wise Times Sq.Somewhat off topic he nails it playing 'Father Martin' in the movie 'Drug Store Cowboy'.He brought back memories.Beat in its pure dope version 'Burroughs is not.He rolled a few drunks,kids stuff,traveled when customs was a joke.The Book was good for readers who know shit about 'copping H on42nd st before the Man shows up.The Dope Man would send a kid around 42nd st,there abouts whistling a tune,that was the tune for the day,all a junkie had to do was hum it as he knocked on a certain door.Beatniks would muscle it in there Hip to avoid an O'D and hide mainline tracks in Arm pit.WHEN a bongo player asked a Beatnik 'Are you cool daddy O,Are you 'HIP' meaning did you get your muscle shot in the hip today,Slang was they're God.But it had a vital reason 1 being 'The Tombs' had a very high suicide rate.Ivory League Beat Cats came later after the Harrison Act cleaned out the Junkniks.Soon after Hollywood had Gillagan playing cool daddy O bongos.Burroughs failed to mention this era because he missed it and Huncke needed people,any people to work his hussel.The Dope life is violent,Billy Burroughs did half of what he claimed he'd get his bell rung.
Oh come on people! Lord of the Rings! Harry Potter! Just because they are popular does not mean they should be on any "Best..." list. Nor should "To Kill a Mockingbird" for that matter. Good intentions do not mean it's a good book. Its muddled and messy. More importantly it also shows that lots of people chose books that shouldn't have been included on this list. Which means...it doesn't matter when it was published.
Sure Ok I accept the point re: Harry Potter getting kids to read...but have they read any books apart from these? When I was a kid I got hooked on "Doctor Dolittle" and these books were great for a kid of 10. But that doesn't mean they were great. Even now as a mature and sensible adult I still read even though I am disappointed by novels but it doesn't stop me from reading more. (books that have "failed" my test - "A Suitable Boy" and "Atonement and "White teeth" and not forgetting "A Brilliant story of..etc etc and "Daughter of Fortune".)I like the activity of reading. So I will keep going and hopefully I will stumble on a book I actually like.
Conserva wrote: "The 20th century seems to have lasted for more than two hundred years. I have to agree with the poster who commented on the lack of nonfiction."All nonfiction was purged at one point by a rogue librarian, I believe--that definitely happened to the Best Books Ever list. (Please add nonfiction & vote it
up). If you identify the books not in the 20th century I or another librarian will remove them. I went through the whole list once a while back and don't want to do that again!
I don't think that the Harry Potter books should be on this list. They don't feel important enough.
It's interesting that there aren't more writers who are people of color.
Checkhov and William Blake are still on the list! Come on, people, 20th century!
And Edgar Allan Poe, and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, people who died in the 19th century!
This is weird, there are several writers who died in the 19th century on this list (Chekhov, Poe, Jane Austen, H.W.Longfellow...), but when I try to add "Encyclopedia of the Dead" (Enciklopedija mrtvih) by Danilo Kiš, it says "not published in this century"?! It was first published in 1983! And even the English edition listed here is from 1998.
When there are more than 6000 books it is no longer a list.
Is this "Best 20th Century Books Originally Published in English Language" or "Best 20th Century Books Published or Translated into the English Language"?
Kelly wrote: "When there are more than 6000 books it is no longer a list."Kelly, great point. We're approaching a "List of all Books at my Library."
Danny wrote: "The Secret History by Donna Tartt was published in 2004. It's not 20th century at all. Do people read the title of the list before selecting a book?!"
"Reading is important," I always say.
Look, discerning fellow readers, let us attempt to communicate a bit more graciously.Juliettesammons
Is it possible to share communication as the contents of the particular work is concerned? Can we not express ourselves as enlightened scholars? Negative feedback is counterproductive and should be used sparingly.Thanks!
Is there anyone at least of the year of 2015 WITH ANY COMMENT??
Juliette wrote: "Look, discerning fellow readers, let us attempt to communicate a bit more graciously.Juliettesammons"Juliette, when you say 'discerning readers' you realize you're talking, in general, to people who actually voted "Go Set A Watchman" as best fiction of 2015, but it was written as a draft, in the 1950s, and never meant to be published at all. I understand your frustration.
Juliette wrote: "Is there anyone at least of the year of 2015 WITH ANY COMMENT??"Okay! Best fiction I've read in 2015: "A Little Life".
Alex wrote: "Graham wrote: "John C. Maxwell's books on LeadershipStephen Covey 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
These are books that should be on the top 100 books of the 20th century
Graham Huxtable"
This..."
Alex, lol.
india 2020,wings of fire Dr.Abdulkalam
jessica juniper wrote: "There are several books on here that are not from the 20th Century...Jane Austen, The Brontes, and Joyce plus many more...can someone fix this please!"Both books by James Joyce on this list were published in the 1900s.
I haven´t seen how Toni Morrison´s Song of Solomon is ranked, but to me, it must be among the top 5, together with Garcia Marquez´s Cien años de soledad
Very few Russians, French, or Germans, let alone writers from the rest of the world...English-centric, mostly.
Paul wrote: "Checked for duplicates: 1 book removed."I don't know if this list is still being monitored, but The Catcher in the Rye is on here twice. Combining those votes would raise the rank to its accurate place.
The Namesake, ranked #2765 by Jhumpa Lahiri: Published Dec 2001 according to the Greads listing, so a 21st century book. I'm planning to read it, so I noticed.
Seriously, where is His Dark Materials?
Not enough British writers on this list, too many Americans who are not as good in my opinion.
Susie wrote: "Seriously, where is His Dark Materials?"If you want a book added, you have to do that yourself. Go to the tab at the top of the list and tap "Add Books", on the righthand side. Your own book list--those read, want to read, and currently read--will show up. There's a box where you can enter the title mentioned, and then you can click"Vote for this book". I am assuming this is a favorite book of yours that was not written by you. It is not a good idea for authors to add their own books to the list.
I write this to you as one of many volunteer librarians; my 100 votes, including some books I added, went to the books I like best. If you are concerned about duplication, that's okay; from time to time one of us will go through and have the system check for duplications, so it will be taken care of. But no one but you is going to add your book choice for you if you don't see it already on the list.
Mitch wrote: "Not enough British writers on this list, too many Americans who are not as good in my opinion."Then feel free to add them. Book choices are controversial, but I think it's wonderful that we still have the ability to invent any book list we like and see what others will vote for, as well as advocate for our own favorite titles.
Have you checked to see whether there is also a book list of favorite British authors? I don't mean to imply that more British authors should not be here; you can add them easily. But if you are very interested in British literature, you may also want to vote on a British listopia, or start one yourself.
Ditto for Harry Potter books. Good story, so-so writing, derivative, but well told. But, no place on a list for 20th century literature, given they were all published in the 21 century. Buy a calendar people.
B&H_Dad wrote: "Ditto for Harry Potter books. Good story, so-so writing, derivative, but well told. But, no place on a list for 20th century literature, given they were all published in the 21 century. Buy a calen..."You may need one yourself. I don't like Harry Potter either, but the first 3 books were published in the late 1990s:
1997:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...
1998:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
1999:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...
The whole purpose of the listopia is to provide a democratic forum to share tastes. My taste and yours won't be completely the same, and some books we don't necessarily like will make the first page. The only ones that volunteer librarians (the only ones working listopia now) can remove are those that are clearly outside the parameters set by the listmaker. I can remove a book from the 21st century, or from the 19th, but I can't remove a book just because I don't like it...not that I would do such a thing in any case.
Amanda wrote: "Paul wrote: "Checked for duplicates: 1 book removed."I don't know if this list is still being monitored, but The Catcher in the Rye is on here twice. Combining those votes would raise the rank to..."
Bumping this...
Vince wrote: "Amanda wrote: "Paul wrote: "Checked for duplicates: 1 book removed."I don't know if this list is still being monitored, but The Catcher in the Rye is on here twice. Combining those votes would ra..."
Amanda, duplications are easily removed by the computer. Thanks for the heads up; it looks like Vince has already got this.
For other books that should not be on a listopia and are not duplicates, let us know the page #s on which you find them, and then we can go in manually and take care of it.
It´s hard said only one.I Doubt between To Kill a Mockingbird and 1984. I believe that the two are very important in literature history and are book that everyone must read. But i love Fahrenheit 451 and Brave new world and i think that A diary of a young girl is so important, because is a book that remove people hearts. And i love The little prince, because i think that is a book you can read a klot of times, but ever iever said new things
Donna wrote: "Vince wrote: "Amanda wrote: "I don't know if this list is still being monitored, but The Catcher in the Rye is on here twice."This doesn't appear to be fixed. The Catcher in the Rye is still on the list at #9 and #16.
Amanda wrote: "Donna wrote: "Vince wrote: "Amanda wrote: "I don't know if this list is still being monitored, but The Catcher in the Rye is on here twice."This doesn't appear to be fixed. The Catcher in the Rye..."
I went in to edit out duplicates and an error message popped up, which either means the server is already too busy, or that someone else is editing the list at the same time that I am trying to do it. Let's hope it's the latter.
Meanwhile, I checked the two editions, and one appears to be a condensed version of the other--192 pp vs 277. I can't remove one manually without also removing all the votes that go with it, which is not permitted. I'll check back later when the site isn't so busy and see if it's still there, and thank you, Amanda, for pointing it out.
Shweta.Shinde wrote: "I am book addict, Read many books online and offline, great book, but I want to tell you, you can also read more and get more exposure.I have recently come across one of the good book which is on ..."
Using this thread to encourage others to purchase a book is generally considered spam. I'm not flagging it, but I am telling you it's not acceptable. If you have favorite Indian books, you can add them and vote for them.
--
Agreed.
"The drought of 1934 was the worst in 1,000 years, according to a study by NASA, published in Geophysical Research Letters. Scientists looked at modern records as well as records of tree rings from 1000 to 2005 and determined that the 1934 event, which affected about 72% of western North America, was 30% more extreme that its closest competitor, which occurred in 1580. "It was the worst by a large margin, falling pretty far outside the normal range of variability that we see in the record," said NASA's Ben Cook, lead author of the study" Sigma Xi Smartbrief; Oct 17, 2014.
"Grapes of Wrath" wasn't just great writing about universal human themes, it was also uniquely descriptive of a significant 20th century tragedy. It deserves to be up there with iconic books about the war experience.