>>25505652
No. Lists should lay out its items in a vertical direction. This goes in a horizontal direction when laying out items.

>>25505652
To Kill a Mockingbird... the greatest joke to ever be played on literature.

>>25505652
Yeah, obviously. But you should develop your own taste. There are so many great books out there that you'll surely die before you've read 1% of them. Why trudge through hundreds of 'classics' if some of them you won't even like?

>>25505652
>1. Ulysses
Into the trash it goes

>>25505652
I guess? Its basically the exact same as the lit chart

>>25505652
It's kind of odd that Wilson's translation is present. She herself has said it is rushed garbage and is currently retranslating it from scratch.

>>25505816
Not really. Maybe a third of it is

>>25505652
No of course it isn't. I hope you’re not asking this question sincerely but I'm beginning to suspect people often are.

The list has a lot of decent books on it, worth reading if you like fiction. But there's a huge amount missing. And the order, if they're supposed to be ranked, is ridiculous.

The worst problem is that it seems to think big fat novels are the height of literature and poetry is a footnote.

The second-worst problem is that there are a couple of non-fiction things thrown in, but if you're going to open that can of worms, you have to be serious about it. (Better just to exclude it altogether.)

Number one should be "My Magnificent Life: An Autobiography" by me

>>25505652
TIL there are two Invisible Man novels.

>>25505652
Only to look at for ideas. Perhaps you'll see a book you didn't know about.
I've always preferred to look at more curated guides to a specific area - e.g. existentialism. Maybe see who the key writers are and the main books.

The top 100 lists are bullshit. They always have meme books very few have read placed way too high and for individual writers they'll rank their well known work above their better stuff.

They're "book's I heard somewhere, probably on a podcast on youtube, or meme identity politics grifter mentions, or I have to read at school" lists


At a glance... stupid things in this list;
- religious texts like the bible shouldn't be on a list like this
- ulysses will have been read by < 0.1% of people who make these list
- same with Proust ISOLT
- P&P is not Austen's best and imo even her best stuff barely deserves inclusion
- Master & Margarita is ok, but overrated, and most haven't read it.
- On the Road is pure dogshit lol
- Brave New World is ok, but certainly not 'top 100'. It's just a book people are familiar with
- I happen to like Dostoevsky, but he's over represented in these list as he's fashionable these last few years
- Walden may have cultural relevance, but isn't even a good book, nevermind a 'top 100'

- Anne Frank. Hard agree. Great work of fiction.

>>25505652
Overrates americans and grossly overrates novels over poems but you have to get past 30 entries before the obligatory negro representation picks start to show up so it's quite alright compared to most curated lists like these

>>25506180
>I happen to like Dostoevsky, but he's over represented in these list as he's fashionable these last few years
If you are alluding to Dostoevsky’s worst novels, then, indeed, I dislike intensely The Brothers Karamazov and the ghastly Crime and Punishment rigamarole. No, I do not object to soul-searching and self-revelation, but in those books the soul, and the sins, and the sentimentality, and the journalese, hardly warrant the tedious and muddled search. Dostoyevsky’s lack of taste, his monotonous dealings with persons suffering with pre-Freudian complexes, the way he has of wallowing in the tragic misadventures of human dignity – all this is difficult to admire. I do not like this trick his characters have of ”sinning their way to Jesus” or, as a Russian author, Ivan Bunin, put it more bluntly, ”spilling Jesus all over the place." Crime and Punishment’s plot did not seem as incredibly banal in 1866 when the book was written as it does now when noble prostitutes are apt to be received a little cynically by experienced readers. Dostoyevsky never really got over the influence which the European mystery novel and the sentimental novel made upon him. The sentimental influence implied that kind of conflict he liked—placing virtuous people in pathetic situations and then extracting from these situations the last ounce of pathos. Non-Russian readers do not realize two things: that not all Russians love Dostoevsky as much as Americans do, and that most of those Russians who do, venerate him as a mystic and not as an artist. He was a prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian. I admit that some of his scenes, some of his tremendous farcical rows are extraordinarily amusing. But his sensitive murderers and soulful prostitutes are not to be endured for one moment—by this reader anyway. Dostoyevsky seems to have been chosen by the destiny of Russian letters to become Russia’s greatest playwright, but he took the wrong turning and wrote novels.

>>25505652
The top 5 is terrible and I don't mean that they are bad books, but they obviously don't deserve any placing even close to the top 10.

>>25506180
Which one of Dostojewski's 4 big novels do you think could reasonably be left out of a top 100 list that includes the likes of Sylvia Plath, Harper Lee and Frank Herbert? Do you in all seriousness believe that any single one of Dostojewski's novels is worse than the Bell Jar or Dune?

>>25506266
It is, as in all Dostoyevsky's novels, a rush and tumble of words with endless repetitions, mutterings aside, a verbal overflow which shocks the reader after, say, Lermontov's transparent and beautifully poised prose. Dostoyevsky as we know is a great seeker after truth, a genius of spiritual morbidity, but as we also know he is not a great writer in the sense Tolstoy, Pushkin and Chekhov are. And, I repeat, not because the world he creates is unreal -all the worlds of writers are unreal - but because it is created too hastily without any sense of that harmony and economy which the most irrational masterpiece is bound to comply with (in order to be a masterpiece). Indeed, in a sense Dostoyevsky is much too rational in his crude methods, and though his facts are but spiritual facts and his characters mere ideas in the likeness of people, their interplay and development are actuated by the mechanical methods of the earthbound and conventional novels of the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

no