__ __ _ _____ _ _ _
| \/ | ___| |_ __ _| ___(_) | |_ ___ _ __
| |\/| |/ _ \ __/ _` | |_ | | | __/ _ \ '__|
| | | | __/ || (_| | _| | | | || __/ |
|_| |_|\___|\__\__,_|_| |_|_|\__\___|_|
community weblog
Another take on 100 best novels.
The readers vote back. Last month the Guardian published a list of the 100 best novels as chosen by "more than 170 novelists, critics and academics" (previously). Now the Grauniad has run a poll of readers and generated a different list.
posted by doctornemo on Jun 07, 2026 at 7:28 AM
---------------------------
The Lord of the Rings? The.Lord.Of.The.Rings...
Well phew, I'm glad this is now settled
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 7:52 AM
---------------------------
just starting down the list but come on The Magus is absolutely the worst book I have ever read and one of the most throw-across-the-room-or-in-the-garbage-able :P
posted by supermedusa at 8:24 AM
---------------------------
I'm something like 16 read and 5 started but not finished for this list. And that includes Tolkein's Lord of the Rings, counting both abandoned starts as one "I'm envious how many breakfasts you hobbits take, but some of us have written to do" / "he's a ranger with destiny written all over him like writing" -> I've learned nothing that informs my character, that looks set to continue.
Please, if you know where Sir Terry's fans were, shout out which Pratchett books they've missed. Me: Good Omens and Moving Pictures.
posted by k3ninho at 11:52 AM
---------------------------
It's the Yelp version of the original critics' list.
posted by yellowcandy at 12:22 PM
---------------------------
The original list was ridiculous and full and shortsighted but as always the reader's corrected list is even more boring. You guys, there are so many great books out there. So many, From places and people all over the world. I'm moved all the time by wonderful, wonderful novels. And I desperately want one of these to not feel like a list of titles from people that quit reading fiction after high school.
That said, Absalom, Absalom is the best Faulkner.
posted by Thivaia 2.0 at 12:34 PM
---------------------------
Good Omens was a collaboration, so I'ma disqualify it. Thud! Lords and Ladies, Nation
posted by Previous username Jacen at 1:26 PM
---------------------------
Probably only a few around here are old enough to remember this, but one of the first widely-shared Internet Age lists of "Greatest Novels" was the Modern Library's 100 Best Novels list, published in 1998, having been arrived at by a poll of bigwig editors, critics, scholars, and authors. In the spirit of populism, they also compiled a Reader's List, via open internet poll, which allowed anyone to vote once per day. The internet was no less full of chuds in 1998 than it is now. So, no matter how critical you are of this Reader's List, you'll certainly find it better than the list Modern Library was forced to publish as a result of this horrible mistake ( since taken down).
The top ten were:
(The Reader's List)
1. ATLAS SHRUGGED by Ayn Rand
2. THE FOUNTAINHEAD by Ayn Rand
3. BATTLEFIELD EARTH by L. Ron Hubbard
4. THE LORD OF THE RINGS by J.R.R. Tolkien
5. TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD by Harper Lee
6. 1984 by George Orwell
7. ANTHEM by Ayn Rand
8. WE THE LIVING by Ayn Rand
9. MISSION EARTH by L. Ron Hubbard
10. FEAR by L. Ron Hubbard
posted by demonic winged headgear at 1:54 PM
---------------------------
Here we go again.
posted by zardoz at 2:20 PM
---------------------------
I got two or three chapters into All the Light We Cannot See and ended up closing it with a hatred I reserve for very few books. By the (very much a minority) 1-star Goodreads reviews it didn't get better, either.
posted by BungaDunga at 2:34 PM
---------------------------
In the spirit of populism, they also compiled a Reader's List, via open internet poll, which allowed anyone to vote once per day.
Oh God, I remember that. If it had happened now, the winner would have been "Booky McBookFace", by Book Bookerson.
posted by Daily Alice at 2:52 PM
---------------------------
Seems like the Guardian could also sort votes by author and pick out Pratchett (probably), etc. Repêchage (sp?)
posted by clew at 3:37 PM
---------------------------
This is a much better list than the first one, which is really saying something. It's true that there are some books on this list that are much worse than those on the first list, but at least someone who really, really believes that A Little Life (gag me with a heteronormativity) belongs on this list is operating from a position of innocence, unlike someone who alleges that, eg, 1984 is better than Persuasion.
I personally do not think that a book belongs on any kind of world-historical books list unless its ideas and its form are outstanding and it is, I dunno, not just an easy read that slides down a treat. For this reason, many books that I quite like and think are good do not belong on world-historical books lists.
I also think that for the most part, social novels and historical novels don't belong on this kind of list. Germinal does, and Beloved does, but those are both apocalyptic books with incredible, shocking, overwhelming sequences. Like, when you consider Bleak House it's a kind of social novel (about illegitimacy) but that's just a fraction of the things the book is about.
Further, I think people really need to distinguish between "my top 100"/"books that have changed the way I think and live" and "the best books available in English". Like, I doubt that I would be the person I am today if not for Jane Langton's Reagan-era children's book The Fragile Flag, but that's not even one of her best children's books!
Also:
The Martha Quest books are better than The Golden Notebook
STILL, no one has read any ambitious fiction from the 80s, 90s or early 2000s.
Milan Kundera owes his entire reputation in English to shallow anti-communism and The Unbearable Lightness of Being is trite.
No Henry James?
I think those Ferrante books are overrated - they're Marge Piercy novels writ European and in slightly better prose. (If you like Ferrante, you will almost certainly also like Braided Lives and Piercy's novels of the 70s through 80s. I like them a lot and think they're very good, actually.)
Far, far too many people confuse "this book is about trauma! and social problems!" with "this is a great book". A serious book or even politically mobilizing and effective book isn't necessarily a great book.
The Lord of the Rings is very, very good at what it does. It's a perfect series on its own terms. It's just that those terms are not as sophisticated, challenging or interesting as the terms on which Emma or Ulysses or even Little, Big are operating.
posted by Frowner at 4:40 PM
---------------------------
This list reminded me of r/books, and yeah the thread there about this list has a good number of favorable reactions.
IMO that's fine and makes sense. It's the other list trying to be selective or whatever by surveying only novelists, critics, and academics that felt worth putting beside possibilities the poll overlooked--with straightforward implications like, you know, an 'expert' poll also has issues, there's always different expertise to be had, etc.
FWIW I agreed with others that the most interesting ballots in that poll unambiguously reflected experience few other contributors had, and it's often not hard to get unusual experience with super specific reading areas you choose for yourself. I've made FPPs on that basis, e.g. surveying nonfiction--more or less--from 1800 to 1830 until I found an especially interesting one from each year and posted a bunch of them. Or when I took a bibliography of shipwreck narratives, skimmed like a hundred available online, and came back to read the best more carefully and post about them.
It works for fiction too, e.g. reading books from X years / decades / regions / subgenres until I have Y books that feel like favorites in that domain has basically the same structure as annual 'Hugo reading' in science fiction I've also sometimes done. And though a lot of my own projects like that didn't get finished, the ones that did affected me in a lot of ways, so it's something I'd really recommend rather than comparing yourself to lists like these.
posted by Wobbuffet at 4:45 PM
---------------------------
Frowner, yes to everything.
Also: I've been making that argument about the Martha Quest books vs The Golden Notebook for actual decades and I'm delighted to learn I'm not alone.
posted by Thivaia 2.0 at 6:26 PM
---------------------------
this is kind of like how The Shawshank Redemption is the #1 movie on imdb. Like it's not a bad movie but it's not a transcendent work of art. There's a reason why the average dope doesn't get to chair the Booker award and it's because they have bad taste
posted by dis_integration at 6:29 PM
---------------------------
It's true that there are some books on this list that are much worse than those on the first list, but at least someone who really, really believes that A Little Life (gag me with a heteronormativity) belongs on this list is operating from a position of innocence, unlike someone who alleges that, eg, 1984 is better than Persuasion.
Uh, I would "allege" that 1984 is better than Persuasion. Reasonable minds can disagree!
posted by Ursula Hitler at 7:09 PM
---------------------------
By what criteria, other than "I like the politics better" or "the subject matter is more interesting to me" or "it is easier for the modern reader to grasp"?
posted by Frowner at 7:22 PM
---------------------------
Frowner, you undersell Kundera, but Unbearable Lightness is overrated. Kinda like Slaughterhouse Five undersells Vonnegut. Conversely, I don't know why anyone would choose Brother's Karamazov over CaP. I'm a little surprised no 1000 Years of Solitude. I'm very surprised no Delillo.
posted by es_de_bah at 8:22 PM
---------------------------
Thivaia and Frowner, do you have Best Novel lists that you like more? (Or lists of your own that you'd be willing to share?)
posted by beautifulstuff at 9:42 PM
---------------------------
Oh, there's a fun / relevant AskMe going on, inspired by Frowner's comment above: Ambitious Fiction from the 80s, 90s or Early 2000s?
posted by Wobbuffet at 9:49 PM
---------------------------
Frowner, I have a hunch this would not be a productive discussion. Saying only an "innocent" (code word for uneducated and/or dopey?) person could possibly prefer 1984 kind of seems like you're spoiling for a fight, and that's not how I'd care to spend what's left of my Sunday night. If 1984 didn't speak to you that's fine, and if Persuasion didn't speak to me that's fine too.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 10:04 PM
---------------------------
It *is* interesting how much more story and experience feature in people's favorite books than style and technique, and that's why lists from the general public will always be middlebrow.
posted by dame at 2:57 AM
---------------------------
There might be a methodological issue too. Even if everyone surveyed had a favorite book that was a modern experimental novel, I'd be surprised if lots of them were the *same* novel. We don't all like the same new methods at the same time. They're different! By definition! And we have to learn how to read them, individually and as a literature.
posted by clew at 8:07 AM
---------------------------
If 1984 didn't speak to you that's fine, and if Persuasion didn't speak to me that's fine too.
But "speaking to us" isn't the criterion for a great book, that's the problem I have with this kind of list.
I actually really prefer idiosyncratic "my favorite 100 novels" lists, whether they are from Sylvia in Accounts Receivable or Marlon James. A favorites list not only tells you something about the person but it's likely to tip you off to some novel that you would otherwise dismiss because it wasn't your type of thing or the first chapter wasn't well-edited, etc. And any favorites list is totally legitimate, no debate!
I asked a recommendation question a couple of months ago that got me some great suggestions, one of which was this absolutely amazing novel The Secret Service, by Wendy Walker. It's not going to be everyone's cup of tea for entirely legit reasons, but it is really good! Like, it's absolutely 100% better than many of the second/third tier books on most best-of lists. But few people have heard of it! It's a weird book and it was published by an extremely small press. (As long as you can handle long novels and stories within stories, I don't think it's difficult to read with enjoyment, although I did skip the pastiche scientific paper because my brain just wouldn't do it.)
My point here is that I bet there are thousands of books like this - considering two and a half centuries of popular publishing in English, there certainly are! But on the best-of lists, we only get a mix of books everyone read in high school and college and some influential best-sellers.
Personal lists are far, far more likely to pick up these out of the way but excellent books. Anyone who reads a lot of classic novels will hit Bleak House and Vanity Fair and Middlemarch eventually; only sheer good fortune brought me The Secret Service.
posted by Frowner at 9:20 AM
---------------------------
Yes, but personal favorites lists will more often get you Shibumi. Unless your methodology has a secret step choosing whose lists you spend time on.
(Estimate how many more books you can read in your lifetime; at 37% of the total...???)
posted by clew at 9:41 AM
---------------------------
"What are lists like this for?" feels like an anthropological question to me, and I've had a couple of occasions to think about the smaller but vaguely similar case of the Hugo Awards in those terms, so I guess I'm willing to say some random stuff off the cuff.
As an awards process, the Hugos are way more clearly something symbolic, and in particular, I'd describe them as what Sherry Ortner called elaborating symbols. Elaborating symbols are not sacred or imbued with uncanny significance or whatever. They're just an ordinary means to "provide categories for conceptualizing the order of the world" and they "have elaborating power" for thinking about some matter of significance to the group--not least, for thinking about the group itself. Pulling back from that detail view, elaborating symbols are a subset of key symbols, where key symbols articulate in an intelligible way something more diffuse about the group that's using them.
The Hugo Awards fit that picture pretty well, for one thing because I've definitely heard Hugo admins reason about them in terms of the voters making collective choices, e.g. on what can go into Best Related Work or whatever, and participants reason about them as a communal choice about what to honor--like, even if individuals all earnestly vote for a "best," we all also know the result is more an honor bestowed through a process we've agreed on than a critical verdict we've agreed on. Bear in mind, anyone can vote on the Hugos by spending $50 for a supporting membership to Worldcon, so like a lot of Hugo stuff, what exactly makes it a community has an oddly technical definition--which is kind of how people like it and yet another fact about the community.
Anyway, from an outside point of view, I suspect the results of the Hugo Awards are often interpreted like these two Guardian polls. They're presumed to symbolize something about, let's say, "The Novel" or what we as readers of the novel in English view as exemplary in the novel. But that's a load they can't really bear if you push against them at all. What they can actually do is what the Guardian invited readers of the first poll to do very explicitly: function as more personal symbols of cultural participation / success by counting up how many you've read. Like, they even made it possible to 'shopping cart' your personal count.
Situating your own reading relative to the lists probably has a gajillion other ways it could work out, and provoking conversations like this thread on Metafilter can obviously go a gajillion ways too. But either way, if you read the summary of Sherry Ortner's concept of elaborating symbols, instead of thinking of the Guardian polls as "root metaphors," I guess I'm thinking of them as providing "root metonyms" for people who think of themselves as having an interest in literature--not as very much information about the books at all.
posted by Wobbuffet at 10:34 AM
---------------------------
This list is really good and I am 100% going to get over the Lord of the Rings thing.
Good job, Guardian readers.
posted by DarlingBri at 1:04 PM
---------------------------
Wobbuffet, that's a great lens, but I'll stick to "performative reading back-pocket paperbacks" and pick something I'll pretend to read off this list.
posted by k3ninho at 2:14 PM
---------------------------
Another county heard from ? Contra supermedusa, I thought The Magus [1965] was The Coolest Thing when I read it aged 18. It is associated in my "mind" with Antonioni's Blow-up [1966] . . . and Costas-Gavras' Z [1969]. Then again, I also thought The Catcher in the Rye was just Grreat when I read it as a teenager. But infuriating when I re-read it in my 30s.
And I agree with Peter Jackson that Lord of the Rings is a lot better when Tom Bombadil ends up on the cutting-room floor.
Should I re-read The Magus and have my teenage senses jangled and upset? Maybe.
posted by BobTheScientist at 2:16 PM
---------------------------
I went through a John Fowles stage at one point, until I got to The Magus, and bounced off it hard, and haven't read anything by him since, I don't think.
posted by gingerbeer at 6:12 PM
---------------------------
Odd that this tangent should come up; I just finished The Magus a few weeks ago. I have a few conflicting thoughts on it: First, it's a lot of time to spend with a character who is meant to be a little repellent, and who never, ever changes except maybe slightly at the end. It's like you're peeling an onion, and you just keep peeling and there's still more onion, and your eyes are red and watering but the thing just won't end, and you're starting to rethink your whole relationship with onions.
But while I had my complaints, I think the length was crucial for the experience the book was trying to get across. These days maybe we'd see it as a cross between an ARG and sustained gaslighting. It's an act of justice, maybe, an attempt to break a character down into atoms; if this were a horror novel he would've been dispatched 200 pages in, rather than drawn on and on and on, deeper and deeper into a world of illusions and disillusions. It would've been better with another five hundred blank pages, or maybe lorem ipsum pages, just so you wouldn't really be sure when it was over. That way you could sustain that feeling of being lost, of having the truth kept from you, but continually teased that it might just be one more chapter away.
It's not a book I enjoyed in the sense you might sink into a pleasure-read, but I am glad to have read it. It was more effort than I expected, and I liked thinking about it after it was over.
posted by mittens at 6:57 PM
---------------------------
Like some others I read The Magus when I was a teenager. I remember thinking, "Seriously? Adults think this is good?" Anyhow, that gave me permission to think I could like & read whatever the hell I wanted, so I did.
Also, Peter Carey's Oscar and Lucinda is pretty great.
posted by sneebler at 7:34 AM
---------------------------