Friday is RobAroundBookLists day, and this week I thought I’d feature Time Magazine’s All-time 100 Novels (1923 to ‘present’), as picked by its respected in-house critics Lev Grossman and Richard Lacayo.
The list, published in 2005 (so ‘present’ would of course constitute a time period immediately prior to 2005) is an interesting one. It contains largely the same kind of titles that can be found in other ‘industry’ lists, such as the Modern Library’s 100 Best Novels that was featured here a couple of weeks ago, but there are a number of points of interest for me:
- Firstly the list is presented in alphabetical order and NOT in order of merit like most, which puts all titles in the list on an ‘equal pegging’. I feel that’s very important because one’s judgement of the recommendations is not influenced by any hierarchical element.
- Secondly there are a number of inclusions I didn’t expect. Saul Bellow’s Herzog is one which I haven’t seen crop up on many (if any) of the lists I’ve looked through before, so the Time’s list has brought it to my attention. C. S. Lewis’ The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe is a title which I’ve never personally seen on any list, other than lists exclusively for children, which is most interesting. Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go, which although good (my afterthoughts are here), is one I would never consider to be an ‘all-time best’. Surely Remains of the Day was a much better (and more awarded?) Ishiguro novel?
- As far as omissions go I was surprised, especially after being bombarded with them on the Modern Library list
), not to find a single Ayn Rand title in the selection. And I was also a bit miffed to see two Nabokov titles on the list, with no other Russian inclusion – what about Solzhenitsyn for instance? )
Fundamentally of course, these kinds of lists are always subjective and one could go on forever arguing about what should and shouldn’t be included in a ‘best novel’ list. Ultimately though it doesn’t really serve any purpose. The main thing is that the Time Magazine’s 100 Novel list adds another great resource for those researching modern ‘classics’ to add to their reading lists. Couple that with the fact that each entry is accompanied with a link to a very useful succinct synopsis for each title (and where available, a link to an original Time’s review as well), and this becomes a seminal list that can’t afford to missed.
About Rob
I wouldn’t want to write a list of the top 100 books of all time, it’s just not realistic. Do the Times state the criteria for a positive judgement anywhere? ‘The lion, the witch and the wardrobe’ is a very well known and widely read book, and more people will be aware of it because of the recent cinema production, and perhaps popularity over a number of years; then again, if that’s the way they judge, the Bible should be on there. It still sells very well and has been in publication around the world for a great many years.
hey, this looks familiar ;-D
there are a lot of two-timers on the list as well – 2 orwells, 2 waughs, 2 pynchons (um, and yes, i’m still on gravity’s rainbow), 2 philip roths, 2 bellows…but only 1 steinbeck and 1 mccarthy? that said, this list has exposed me to many new styles and authors and helped me to better recognize what i look for in a novel and what i hope to take from it.
says:
@Melody-Jane – I hear you loud and clear and the Bible point is a valid one, but remember the list only encompasses books from 1923-2005; and would you class the Bible as a ‘novel’? – I guess may.
) I think you’re absolutely spot on about even trying to compile a 100 best novel list it’s pretty much impossible. Nevertheless it’s a good reference point for researching seminal titles.
@Krista – Looks like someone has DEFINITELY referenced this list before.:o) I thought I was good at picking out the 2 Nabokovs, and here’s you breaking it down into minute detail
) I’m impressed!
So you’re still stuck on Gravity’s Rainbow? It sounds like you may surpass my Grapes of Wrath reading time. Then again you’ve got the excuse of going on a major vacation while reading this, and from what I’ve heard Gravity’s Rainbow is also a pretty dense read, so no reason to beat yourself up I’d say.