What is the attraction of lists like this, anyway? To be honest, there are times whether I wonder whether it is little more than the penchant, best reflected in the movie High Fidelity, to demonstrate one's social distinction as a cultural critic (and such lists are best prepared, obviously, as done in the movie - off the cuff and under a time deadline, in order to further demonstrate one's intimate understanding of the subject and one's innate superiority).
In general, I refuse to participate in the fashioning of such lists. People will ask me silly questions like "What's your favorite movie" or "What's your favorite book" and my response will be something like "You mean, by genre, author/actor, or time of day?" Or, more than likely, "I can't remember all the books I've read or movies I've seen," or "I've slept since then."
So anyway, here's the Time Magazine All Time 100 Novels. The phrase "All Time" is something of a play on words, since it only covers the period of 1923 to the present (as Blogcritic Legendary Monkey notes, this covers the period of the magazine's existence, as it was founded in 1923). Oddly enough, 1923 is also the cutoff for certainty regarding the public domain; works published prior to 1923 are in the public domain, while works published after that may still be subject to copyright protection (and if Disney has its way, always will). Pardon the aside; I was just writing about copyright protection and the blood pressure has yet to settle down.
Here's what Time's managing editor, James Kelly, had to say about the whole idea:
As with our film list, we picked 1923--when TIME began publishing--as our starting point. And we focused on books written in English. That's why there is no Ulysses (published in 1922) or One Hundred Years of Solitude (originally written in Spanish).Lev Grossman and Richard Lacayo, our book critics, reread many of the classics and discovered a few that they had never had a chance to read. There were some easy calls (The Sound and the Fury, Invisible Man, Herzog) and some not so easy (Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer did not make the cut, though both critics admire their essays and nonfiction books). Several authors appear twice, including William Faulkner, Vladimir Nabokov and Saul Bellow. And one author on the list is actually a TIME alumnus: James Agee, who reviewed movies and books for the magazine in the 1940s and is represented by A Death in the Family.
Article comments
1 - adam
You know, there's more agreement about what is a great novel than one might think. If you compare Time's list with the Random House 100 best 20th Century English novels, for example, there are 40 overlaps. The classics are the classics: no one fights about that. No doubt Chandler and Hammett and John Le Carre are classic writers, as is P.G. Wodehouse, but you won't find them on many greatest novels lists, which is only because of the genre prejudice.
I'm not sure if there's a strictly SF writer who's up there with the best, even though two of the all-time classics are SF -- 1984 and Brave New World. I wish I could think of an SF writer who belongs up there: maybe Stanislaw Lem.
2 - Bill Wallo
I don't dispute that there's lots of agreement about some of the great novels. I mean, as far as I'm concerned a good number of the books on the list are among the greats. Of course, if there's 40 overlaps between the two lists, that means there's 60% disagreement. ;)
I just can't get very excited about lists. That was really more of my point.
As for deciding about whether there's an SF author that belongs "up there," Wikipedia has a list of SF authors you could peruse. Of course, that might be a slightly different task than deciding whether any of them might have written a "great" novel.
3 - Robert
Two great novels by a great writer and philosopher are not on your list. The novels are The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged by AYN RAND.
Don't you know that Atlas Shrugged is only second to the bible in sales in this country? Note that the bible has been around for many hundreds of years, yet Atlas Shrugged was first published in 1957.
4 - Eric Berlin
I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged, but I think very few serious lit types would agree that it's an example of fine writing.
I'd be curious to see a Top 100 list broken out into "literary" and "genre" fiction. Non-fic too would kind of fun.
5 - Bill Wallo
Er . . . my list?
I'm not an Ayn Rand fan, either philosophically or of her writing. You're free to disagree, it doesn't hurt my feelings, and you're free to regard me an intellectual lightweight for my sentiments. That won't hurt me either (in large part because I don't plan on agreeing with you on either point).
So were I to quibble with the Time list, it would not be on Rand's behalf. But as I already said, I'm not into quibbling; there's a bunch of great novels on there, there are some great ones that aren't. Lists are, by and large, overrated in my opinion, but hey, if it gets people excited I guess it's worth it.
As for Eric's suggestion, I am reminded of a recent list of the best science fiction TV shows that described The Thunderbirds as "perhaps the best puppet sci-fi show of all time." If we narrow the categories enough, I'm sure we can find a way to shoehorn Rand into a "best" category. :)
6 - Eric Berlin
I just got sucked into reading through that Top 50 list, Bill! Not a great list, in my opinion, and it drew far too much from the campy side. No Angel or The Prisoner? My God!
So... I think a list is good when it's a good list. But they're always fun to rap and argue about.
7 - BIll Wallo
The biggest thing about a list is the discussion. For example, as to the Sci Fi shows list, I thought about The Prisoner as well. I also wondered why, if a show like the Jetsons was included, why not Johnny Quest? Why not Land of the Lost? Why not The Incredible Hulk? Why not Smallville?
Obviously, I have too much time on my hands for thinking.
Or, I think about silly things.
8 - Eric Berlin
Great minds...
I had the feeling that that sci fi list (sorry to run off topic here, but you provided the link!) was not well researched. There were references to shows that were on "for a season or two" and in general it was... fairly general in its assessments.
They claimed that Firefly was on for one season. I mean, come on!
9 - Sister Ray
"Don't you know that Atlas Shrugged is only second to the bible in sales in this country?"
I think it was named "most important" after the Bible in a survey, not the second best-selling book in the United States.
I was glad to see "A Clockwork Orange" and "Rabbit, Run" on the list. I've enjoyed all the books in the Rabbit series.
10 - BIll Wallo
Eric,
I suppose I can't complain about hijacking of a thread when I launched the hijack.
As for the scifi list, no, I don't think it was particularly well-researched, nor was its criteria particularly well established (Xena hardly counts as sci fi in my book, for example - fantasy and sci fi are related, but hardly co-extensive).
Most of the time, they would say things like a show was "ahead of its time." That's not exactly an impressive assessment.
11 - El Bicho
No A Confederacy of Dunces? This list is incomplete.
12 - LegendaryMonkey
Any sci fi list of, well, anything is incomplete without The Prisoner! I call shenanigans!
On this topic, I do agree with Bill Wallo. Lists like this are fun to examine, but they mean just about nothing. It's all subjective.
We should put together a list here at BC. :)
and as a p.s., I was in the midst of re-reading Snow Crash when this came up in the news, so I was pleased as punch.
13 - Eric Berlin
LM, a Prisoner fan? I knew we were simpatico...
14 - LegendaryMonkey
The Prisoner was waaaaay ahead of its time, man.
15 - Baronius
I'd put Atlas Shrugged in the same category as Battlefield Earth: some few would put it #1 on their list, but it wouldn't occur to most people for their top 100.