Catching up on Classics (and lots more!) discussion

I did quite well:

84 of 99 · 85%
You did better than 100% of users on this list
Your rank: #713 of 237.694 users on this list
You beat the avg. score of 24

But I'm surprised, that some of my "non-reads" are books I've never hear of (including two books by Eça de Queirós)

I have heard of all except:
Os Maias 24,361 ratings 897 reviews
O Primo Basílio 7,217 ratings 258 reviews

Seems not too well known on Goodreads, too.

J_BlueFlower wrote: "I have heard of all expect:
Os Maias 24,361 ratings 897 reviews
O Primo Basílio 7,217 ratings 258 reviews

Seems not too well known on Goodreads, too."

I'm glad I'm not the only one ;)

71 of 99 · 72%
You did better than 99% of users on this list
Your rank: #2,376 of 237,698 users on this list
You beat the avg. score of 24

Too many of these have been on my TBR for forever. Some books I just never seem to get to. I had also not heard of those two. Of course, all book lists are arbitrary...you could make up a list of 100 other books that would be just as valid.

What a weird, narrow list. How much Jane Austen does one list need? Not to mention Hemingway, Dickens, ugh. Even ones I've read & enjoyed, I don't necessarily think of them as being in the top 100 classics. To the Lighthouse? Really? The Oddyssey, The Iliad, and The Aeneid?

I stopped counting how many I had read; I just have no interest in seeing how much my reading overlaps with Julia Battagliotti’s.

I've read 28 of them. Not very good, I suppose.

spoko wrote: "What a weird, narrow list. How much Jane Austen does one list need?"

Truly, as much as it can get.

Have we ever made our own list (A list of our Own, hmmm)? The top 100 classics according to active members of Catching up on Classics?

I know we have
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/9...

But
1) That is only book that already have been group reads and
2) I lot of people are voting to bring books to the list rather than preference.

Lets try it:

Please vote for the top 100 classic books:
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/2...

No omnibus in the same way as in the group reads (short story collections are fine, but not complete works)

Pillsonista wrote: “spoko wrote: “What a weird, narrow list. How much Jane Austen does one list need?”

Truly, as much as it can get.”

I would never include a single one, myself, though I can see how others might. But in a list of 100 books, there’s no reason at all for her to have multiples.

How do members account for different editions/translations of a book on lists? For example, I have read the trilogy Kristen Lavernsdatter but not the edition of The Wreath shown on the Best 100. I will usually only read one version of a book especially if I own it. Do you mark different versions as Read?

Edited: I marked it Read.

65 of 99 · 66%
You did better than 98% of users on this list
Your rank: #4,043 of 237,842 users on this list
You beat the avg. score of 24

By the end of the year I should finish In Search of Lost Time as I'm currently finishing the third volume after continuing on from January's read of The Swann Way. All that reading so I can add one measly book - but it gets me to the 2/3 mark. I'm really weak on the pre-18th Century classics as I shy away from the challenge.

This is my most recent update. I think I was only at 63 the first time I took the quiz in 2017. At least I'm making progress!

78 of 99 = 79%
You did better than 100% of users on this list
Your rank: #1,189 of 237,846 users on this list
You beat the avg. score of 24

Terris wrote: "This is my most recent update. I think I was only at 63 the first time I took the quiz in 2017. At least I'm making progress!
78 of 99 = 79%
You did better than 100% of users on this list
Your rank: #1,189 of 237,846 users on this list."

Good for you, Terris. Excellent work since 2017.

Brian E wrote: "Terris wrote: "This is my most recent update. I think I was only at 63 the first time I took the quiz in 2017. At least I'm making progress!
78 of 99 = 79%
You did better than 100% of users on this..."

Thanks, Brian! You're not far behind ;)

Terris wrote: "Thanks, Brian! You're not far behind ;).."

At 65 books, I'm a little above the 63 books you were at in 2017. Since you averaged a shade over 2 list books a year in the interim, I'm at about where you were in 2018.
So that makes me about 6 years behind :)

Brian E wrote: "Terris wrote: "Thanks, Brian! You're not far behind ;).."

At 65 books, I'm a little above the 63 books you were at in 2017. Since you averaged a shade over 2 list books a year in the interim, I'm ..."

Well, what else do you have to do in the next 6 years?!
Keep Reading!! haha! ;)

76 of 99 · 77%
You did better than 99% of users on this list
Your rank: #1,427 of 237,892 users on this list
You beat the avg. score of 24

Some I still plan on reading. I don't see ever reading all 99. As with all lists I wonder how some make it and other don't.

Bob wrote: "76 of 99 · 77%
You did better than 99% of users on this list
Your rank: #1,427 of 237,892 users on this list
You beat the avg. score of 24

Some I still plan on reading. I don't see ever reading al..."

Me, too. Because there are some that I never want to read! So, like you, I'll never get to 99!! ;)