Generally accepted list of great books?

The Minstrel

Was just looking through the Penguin Classics and was wondering if there is some sort of generally accepted list of great books. Perhaps there are lots of separate lists by various long-established publishers. Any suggestions?

Eliot Rosewater

Thats a gigantic question!! As a rule there is no generally accepted list (some people even consider the idea of a list an abomination!). Different people will have different criteria. Peoples' bias may also shape it.

The list of great books is usually called the Western Canon. That Wiki page has a few good links to different lists. The Canon is generally composed of older works and compiles different types of literature such as philosophy, drama, poetry, prose and mythology.

Prominent critic Harold Bloom wrote a book in the nineties entitled the Western Canon, where he attempted to define it. In particular he tried to revolt against the bias people had in judging literature (specifically feminist and Marxist views, which are rife in Uni's according to my English friends). From wiki:

Bloom believes that the goals of reading must be solitary aesthetic pleasure and self-insight rather than the "forces of resentments'" goal of improvement of one's society, which he casts as an absurd aim, writing: "The idea that you benefit the insulted and injured by reading someone of their own origins rather than reading Shakespeare is one of the oddest illusions ever promoted by or in our schools." His position is that politics have no place in literary criticism: a feminist or Marxist reading of Hamlet would tell us something about feminism and Marxism but probably nothing about Hamlet itself.

I also started a thread two months ago where I gave links to a few prominent "top 100" lists, although the lists I linked are biased towards modern works.

The best tactic is to pick books that are on a few lists, and published by a few "classic" imprints. Theres a thread here asking who is the best publisher. The only notable omission in the poll is Oxford Worlds Classics.

tHE vAGGABOND

the bbc's big read a few years ago was compiled from tens of thousands [and more?] of votes from the public.

it seems a pretty good list to me

Denerick

I couldn't agree more with Bloom/Rosewater. I hate how Marxists and feminists demand air time with their one dimensional interpretations.

The Minstrel

Nevermind Marxists and feminists...that BBC list is full of the likes of Harry Potter - move aside James Joyce! What's to stop Wayne Rooney's autobiography from topping that list? Lists that have anything to do with the general public voting are a no no.

Also, can anyone suggest a good link for free reading of the classics online? Is there any kind of centralised wiki-type site that holds all the classics online, given that they are out of copyright?

lemon_sherbert

Project Gutenberg has probably the biggest collective of public domain books; http://www.gutenberg.org

tHE vAGGABOND

that BBC list is full of the likes of Harry Potter - move aside James Joyce! What's to stop Wayne Rooney's autobiography from topping that list? Lists that have anything to do with the general public voting are a no no

the list seems pretty good and accurate for real people..

Now if you want a 17th century obsecure book to impress your mates in the golf club or the debate society then its not the list for you

For the record, I have never met someone in real life who has actually read several of the harry potter books and not liked them. Do they have to written in a language no one understands for them to be good books?

Where I only know a couple of people myself in real life who have read all [or a large portion] of Ulysses and actually enjoyed it! Most people rate it up on those lists as they feel they have to

Eliot Rosewater

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

Now if you want a 17th century obsecure book to impress your mates in the golf club or the debate society then its not the list for you

I would put that kind of view in the same category as "you're stupid for reading Twilight", ie scoffing at the other group for no good reason at all. It's conductive to at least try to appreciate the different views on reading.

Most people read books for the same reason they watch Grays Anatomy: it provides entertainment and it's enjoyable due to interesting and inventive plots. Prominent writers in this "class" would be Dan Brown, John Grisham, Stephanie Mayer, JK Rowling etc etc etc.

What you have to realize is that many people consider writing an art form. This "class" is often called literary fiction, which Wikipedia nicely contrasts with general fiction: "In broad terms, literary fiction focuses more on style, psychological depth, and character, whereas mainstream commercial fiction focuses more on narrative and plot." In short, people who read classics are looking for something more than a storyline. An interesting topic would be to investigate reading motives further...


So, in summary, calling each other "snobs" and "plebs" respectively ignores reading attitudes and only causes unnecessary aggravation

Denerick

Snob.

DLohan

The Minstrel wrote: »

Was just looking through the Penguin Classics and was wondering if there is some sort of generally accepted list of great books. Perhaps there are lots of separate lists by various long-established publishers. Any suggestions?

Some of my own favorites -

Easter 1916 - Tim Pat Coogan
The Life of Pi - Yann Martel

tHE vAGGABOND

What you have to realize is that many people consider writing an art form. This "class" is often called literary fiction, which Wikipedia nicely contrasts with general fiction: "In broad terms, literary fiction focuses more on style, psychological depth, and character, whereas mainstream commercial fiction focuses more on narrative and plot." In short, people who read classics are looking for something more than a storyline. An interesting topic would be to investigate reading motives further...

Thanks for breaking it down with the italics and quotations like we are all complete idiots - makes a world of difference for our puny brains

The vast majority of people read for entertainment, full stop. I would argue [maybe incorrectly] the number of people who read 'to appriciate the written word as an art form' are tiny, virtually no one tbh?

Does that make the vast majority right or wrong - that's in the eye of the beholder isn't it

Eliot Rosewater

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

Thanks for breaking it down with the italics and quotations like we are all complete idiots - makes a world of difference for our puny brains

I've re-read my post and theres absolutely nothing there to suggest I treat certain readers in a condescending manner. Its a balanced post and is fair representation of the truth, in my opinion. I like to quote stuff and use Italics because I feel it brings my point across better; its something I do across this whole site.

To be honest, the attitude you have towards me is by far the most dismissive attitude towards a type of reader I've ever seen on Boards.ie. You seem to be waging a battle against snobbery when the only person being snobby is you.

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

I would argue [maybe incorrectly] the number of people who read 'to appriciate the written word as an art form' are tiny, virtually no one tbh?

What do you think University English Departments do?

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

Does that make the vast majority right or wrong - that's in the eye of the beholder isn't it

As I said above, I consider looking down on either the vast majority or the "art-seeking" minority equally pointless.

The Minstrel

DLohan wrote: »

Some of my own favorites -

Easter 1916 - Tim Pat Coogan
The Life of Pi - Yann Martel

I presume this is a joke post, as I was talking about lists....lists which Tim Pat Coogan could never get within a million miles of. I am actually slightly shocked that his name could have found his way onto this thread at all.

The Minstrel

What is this crusade that some people against literary masterpieces? The idea that more people have read Harry Potter so it must be better than James Joyce or whoever is easily refuted. Snobbery has absolutely nothing to do with it. Maybe Harry Potter books are entertaining but that doesn't make them literary masterpieces. This is a statement of fact. More people probably like Robbie Williams than Chopin...so what's your point?

tHE vAGGABOND

Ok, we all love books. Otherwise we would not be on the literature forum! So how about we all agree to disagree on this subject? There is no need for this to get confrontational and potentially nasty. It seems clear people [very much including me] are reading what we want from peoples posts, which is not always what they are actually saying.

A worthy subject for its own thread tho..

DazMarz

Due to studying English, I read many of these literature heavyweight books. I enjoy some, do not enjoy others.

In my spare time I read the likes of Michael Crichton, Dennis Lehane, David Peace, Alex Scarrow, Irvine Welsh, Scott Sigler, Stephen King, Chuck Palahniuk etc. Not 'classic' literature but any stretch. In fact, it is probably 90% bullsh*t and mind-numbing trash. But it entertains me. Which is why I read it.

Just because I would prefer to read a Dennis Lehane book to one of, say, Joyce's works does not mean that I won't read Joyce at all. I will probably read it alright and appreciate the impact and influence it has had. But I will purely enjoy the Lehane book more.

That is how I look at it. I believe that reading anything is better than not reading at all.

Mardy Bum

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is considered a classic in children's Lit now by many in academia ( Mainly because Harry as a character breaks the male/female barrier inherent in Children's Lit) and is studied in university just so you know!

tHE vAGGABOND

I believe that reading anything is better than not reading at all

Amen Brother!

The Minstrel

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is considered a classic in children's Lit now by many in academia ( Mainly because Harry as a character breaks the male/female barrier inherent in Children's Lit) and is studied in university just so you know!

Maybe I'll give it a read...but back on topic, I'm curious about official lists, maybe even subject-specific lists, anything that is accepted by whatever strain of academia it may be...history, theology, fiction, science etc.

Eliot Rosewater

The Minstrel wrote: »

anything that is accepted by whatever strain of academia it may be...history, theology, fiction, science etc.

Well its going to be hard to find an one-size-fits-all list because many academics have different approaches and different opinions on what makes a great book.

Have you looked into the winners of the Booker, Pulitzer (incl. pre-1948) and Nobel prizes?

Sergeant

Any list is always going to divide opinion. Such is the nature of a list. The Fountainhead and Catch-22 always make best of lists. Yet, they are two books which divide public opinion like no other.

Literary fiction will always be a subjective and personal thing. I found 2666 by Roberto Bolano the most profound novel I have read in many years. I recommended it to a number of friends, almost all of them hated it.