Modern Library's 100 Greatest English Language Novels of the 20th Century

Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own

Article comments

— go to most recent comments Subscribe to comment RSS

• 1 - Eric Olsen

  Jun 12, 2003 at 5:00 pm

  I'm stuck at 20, pretty pitiful at this stage of my life!

• 2 - The Theory

  Jun 12, 2003 at 10:32 pm

  i read 3 of those... but they were doosies.
  
  Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler
  As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
  Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
  
  the first two were amazing books. The Faulkner book is a tough read but rewarding.
  
  peace.

• 3 - Frank Giovinazzi

  Jun 13, 2003 at 3:07 am

  First, I'm wary of these kind of lists and only view them as suggestions, not absolutes. For example, I scanned the list twice and didn't see Farenheit 451. Ray Bradbury wrote a great book about ideas and censorship and accurately predicted the rise of TV shows like COPS and America's Most Wanted -- 50 years before they came to fruition.
  
  Nor did I see One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, which revealed the monumental horror of Soviet Communism -- the system that killed more people over a longer period of time than did Nazi Germany -- way before the intellectual elite in this country recanted their puppy love for the false Utopia.
  
  Second, I learned something cool from Louis L'Amour's memoir, Education of a Wandering Man. He tells how he read more than 2 dozen books in a single year while waiting -- for the bus, in lines, etc. Ever since then, I've tried to always have a book on hand and find I get a lot of reading done in the same way.

• 4 - jadester

  Jun 13, 2003 at 7:34 am

  this is funny, i was thinking recently that i should get a list of great British literature ("classics") and start reading them, as i have heard of many but read...none. This list will be helpful

• 5 - Rodney Welch

  Jun 13, 2003 at 10:43 am

  I counted 36, not too much better than I did when the list first came out. I remember half-wondering if the whole thing wasn't a hoax, since at least one title sounded made-up. Beerbohm's book was nowhere near my radar screen -- or that of others. It was the one title on the list that had a lot of readers scratching their heads. I remember talking with a English Ph. D. of some years who admitted with a little embarrassment that he'd never heard of it either.

• 6 - murphy

  Jun 13, 2003 at 11:25 am

  I posted about this list earlier, and it got a lot of comments then too. You can check it out here:
  
  http://www.blogcritics.org/archives/2003/03/20/152252.php#003968
  
  I STILL think that a lot of books on this list are less deserving than many not on it.

• 7 - Randal Ries

  Jun 15, 2003 at 8:24 am

  I find it truly remarkable that despite the existence of Women's and African American studies programs/departments at most major American universities for several decades, that "greatness" in the cannon of English literature remains defined almost exclusively by white males, at least in the eyes the author of the aforementioned list. The list's bias is most apparent in the inclusion of multiple novels by authors like Forester, Joyce, Conrad, or Lawrence which provide little if any distinction from the author's other works and subsequently squeeze out other less prolific authors who may have only a single work worthy of distinction. Authors like Harper Lee, who craft a single work which so profoundly impacts our understanding of race relations and politics, while also altering the form and content of the American novel. To overlook the impact of "To Kill a Mockingbird" on 20th century art and culture is unforgiveable.

• 8 - Rodney Welch

  Jun 15, 2003 at 2:39 pm

  Disagree completely, Randall. This list may not be the greatest, but any list seeking to rank the best certainly need not be burdened with Affirmative Action. Inclusion should be based entirely on talent. And while I think To Kill a Mockingbird is a fine book, I can't bring myself to call it a great book either -- impact on race relations notwithstanding. Aesthetic judgments shouldn't be based on political correctness or social relevance.

• 9 - Adam Shobert

  Jun 21, 2003 at 2:47 pm

  Yeah, I agree. Randal, you sound like someone who just discovered racial inequality and are ready to take it head on by reciting the long tired dead white male argument. Valid as that argument may be (see Norton Anthologies, but they're trying to get better), it has nothing to do with this silly list. And to think that Ulysses, Portrait, and Finnegan's Wake "provide little if any distinction" from each other, I'm afraid you have no idea what's between the covers of these books (not to mention those of Lawerence, Conrad . . . )

• 10 - Jordan

  Jul 05, 2003 at 2:11 am

  Ummm...the list is decent. But the inclusion of Finnegan's Wake on the list is ridiculous. The book makes no sense.

• 11 - Rodney Welch

  Jul 05, 2003 at 12:22 pm

  Really? People who have devoted their lives to it might beg to differ.

• 12 - Jovialjuggler

  Aug 26, 2003 at 10:10 pm

  Hope you've read great gatsby by now :)

• 13 - Al

  Sep 07, 2003 at 8:46 am

  Is the lord of the Rings a novel?
  Or am I missing something?

• 14 - Dew

  Sep 07, 2003 at 1:01 pm

  The Stranger by Albert Camus, changed my life in the 11th grade. But as for the list I think these lists (as there are many of them in variations) can only serve as recommendations. It is solely up to the reader what and how they feel about the book's validation as a solid work. For example, I am a die hard bibliophile but I refuse to read anything else by Ernest Hemingway or Jane Austen. I do not understand how anyone could enjoy them, but on the other hand I love Fitzgerald,Wilde and I actually read The Plague,by Camus also(and liked it). So go figure!

• 15 - Greg Ippolito

  Sep 23, 2003 at 3:58 pm

  We all read the novel when we were 16. Our teenage minds were blown wide open. And I suppose that's why we downplay this novel, subjugating it as Tier 2. After all, to rave about it implicitly places you in the company of half-witted adolscents; when you can appear so much more the intellectual by jumping on the "Ulysses" bandwagon -- even if you didn't find it a digestable read...even if you didn't fully understand it...even if you didn't actually READ it. But to rank "Catcher In The Rye" at #64 is criminal. Criminal. I read picked it up and read it a second time when I was 29, and found it every bit as powerful.

• 16 - Suzan

  Sep 29, 2003 at 9:28 pm

  I have just completed a little informal research into what novels are being taught most often in Contemporary Literature classes. According to about 150 course outlines posted on university web sites, many of the most "literary" 20th century novels are missing from this list, most notably Toni Morrison's BELOVED, which is by far, it seems, to most taught contemporary novel. Also missing are novels by Pynchon, Ishiguro, Atwood, Ondaatje, and Achebe to name only a few. OF course, 100 is a pretty small list...

• 17 - Chris Arabia

  Sep 29, 2003 at 10:33 pm

  Forgive me if someone else mentioned this, but Ivan Denisovich (Russian) and Camus' The Stranger (French) were ineligible for this list because they are not English language novels. I clock in at 4 of the top 10, so what do I know.
  
  While I preferred Cancer Ward, Ivan is probably the best choice for anyone not particularly interested in the Soviet Union.
  
  My top 5, regardless of language:
  
  1-Portrait of the Artist
  2-Anna Karenina
  3-The Great Gatz
  4-Cancer Ward
  5-Animal Farm
  5-Hero of Our Time
  
  Of course, 3-5 could be different.
  
  Random Bonus Pick--Confederacy of Dunces.

• 18 - Julian

  Oct 01, 2003 at 2:07 am

  The list does not include
  
  Dante and his Divine Comedey
  
  and
  
  Sun Tzu
  
  Have we forgotten or are we just looking at modern....good reading is that in the quill of the writer of back then..
  
  And yes that is a real email addy..
  

• 19 - Michelle

  Oct 01, 2003 at 8:04 am

  10 out of 100. Embarassing. However, there are some authors in there multiple times who I know I don't like - Joseph Conrad for instance. So I'll never read all those books. But I like to lists, not for working through them, but as suggestions what to read.

• 20 - Mac Diva

  Oct 01, 2003 at 8:59 am

  Thanks for posting this, Michelle. I may borrow it from you, okay?
  
  Read? Most, but not all. (About 80 out of 100 at a quick glance.) Maybe I'll make a project out of finishing the list. But, some of these people are not deserving of the honor in my opinion.
  
  Observations:
  
  1) Too much Waugh and not enough Wharton.
  
  2) Jack London should not be on the list. Most of the more obscure writers shouldn't be either. That would reduce it to around 85.
  
  3) Where are Eudora Welty, Cynthia Ozick, Joyce Carol Oates, Alice Walker and Toni Morrison? Has whoever put the list together never heard of Chinua Achebe? And, no Tolstoy? Or Hardy? They're kidding, right?
  
  4) You can't really doliterature without including plays, too.
  
  5) Randal is right. Rodney is wrong. You can't ignore 95 percent of the human race and understand what is to be human, which is what literature is about. (See No. 3 above.)
  
  6) There is genre confusion on the list. If sci-fi is acceptable, as suggested by including Huxley, it makes no sense to leave Bradbury and Asimov off.
  
  I'll be thinking about this some more.

• 21 - Mac Diva

  Oct 01, 2003 at 9:01 am

  Oops! I credited Michelle, when I should have credited Kevin.
  
  Speaking of Michelle, maybe I'll make a project of getting her to read Conrad.

• 22 - Chris Arabia

  Oct 01, 2003 at 9:18 am

  Mac D
  
  It's English language only. That knocks out many fine folks, such as Tolstoy and, I think but don't know, Achebe (I read some of his stuff but don't recall his native language, but supposed it to be indigenous). As magnificent as a work such as Anna Karenin(a) is in English, imagine that you don't even get the full story in English! With all the endings and word orders, I'd love to be a Russian poet.
  
  I will never understand the endless fuss over catcher. all of a sudden, it went all-time. it really did.
  
  Someone ought to start a biography post, and maybe a translations post, and maybe a plays post...

• 23 - Phillip Winn

  Oct 01, 2003 at 9:48 am

  Like most ranked lists, this one causes dissension because different people interpret the criteria for inclusion differently. Should novels be based on their influence? Then certainly To Kill A Mockingbird should be included. On the quality of the writing? Then that novel is probably scratched, and that also explains why Asimov isn't included.
  
  I'm only at 19/100, unless watching the movie counts, in which case I can add four more. ;-)
  
  This list obviously wasn't based entirely on popularity, and yet it wasn't completely exclusionary on the basis of popularity, either.
  
  There are far more than 100 great English-language novels, so favorites will always be left off. Some of mine certainly were. To include translations or plays or genre-exclusive work or very recent novels only makes the ranking even more difficult to resolve and less useful.
  
  I've had less-than-positive experiences reading Pulitzer prize-winners, but most of the books I've read from this list are indeed fantastic, if sometimes laborious.

• 24 - Mac Diva

  Oct 02, 2003 at 3:04 pm

  I have expanded on my opinion a little here.
  
  Achebe writes in English. He has had some of his works translated into Ibo, though.

• 25 - Phillip Winn

  Oct 02, 2003 at 3:37 pm

  Good point on Nabakov, MD, I had missed that the first time through. The genre question is a relatively easy one to answer on the surface level, but one with which I've struggled for years at a more detailed level. The example of science fiction on the list are of the "speculative fiction" wing of the sf umbrella, while Heinlein and Asimov generally wrote more hard-core technical science fiction.
  
  I've found that asking the average reader whether or not a given book is science fiction reveals interesting results. If it doesn't have spaceships or aliens, it usually isn't considered sf, even if it deals with alternate realities or possible future events. That's a rough approximation, of course, but I've observed that books that demonstrate characters starting in one reality or time and going to another are considered sf, while books that are set entirely in that other reality or time often don't seem to be. Odd to me, but a common view.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.

Name:

URL:

Remember name and url?

Comment:

Please preview your comment.