You are right, dear. I was not aware of it before. No action is in itself good or bad it's the intention behind it that makes it good or bad.

Mohammad wrote: "I would say that it is tentamount to a disgrace to the all time greats like Kafka and John Steinbeck to list them in teh same league with Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. For this reason alone, ..."

Lord of the Rings practically defined fantasy literature and definitely deserves to be on the list, and I love Steinbeck (never read Kafka).

I agree about Harry Potter though. The only great thing those books did was become internationally famous.

Disagreements aside, what you love most about Steinbeck? I have read most of his works and am greatly inspired by his style, diction and deep understanding of huma psyche.
He makes heroes of everday ordinary folks. I don't know of anybody else who has achieved this feat.

Mohammad wrote: "Disagreements aside, what you love most about Steinbeck? I have read most of his works and am greatly inspired by his style, diction and deep understanding of huma psyche.
He makes heroes of ever..."

Steinbeck was a New Deal populist of the first order. His writing, IMO, is not great prose, but the humanity he displays in Grapes of Wrath, Travels With Charley, and The Pearl qualified him for the Nobel Prize.

I must confess that I can not speak my ideas about the great authors in literary terms.
I have read many master pieces and can feel their depth and deep impact but when it comes to judging literary value of their works I am a poor judge because I compare them only on teh basis of my likes or dislikes.........

Mohammad wrote: "I must confess that I can not speak my ideas about the great authors in literary terms.
I have read many master pieces and can feel their depth and deep impact but when it comes to judging litera..."

Steinbeck is loved for his politics, especially by the Stockholm Nobel committee. Somehow I think I would "trust your gut" as much as I would the professors I had in college. Their are aesthetic criteria, but when it comes to poetry, what speaks to each of us is the best, don't you think ? If you love a poem, that poem is "yours" and surely no rules can take it from you. T. S. Eliot was once "top dog" among academics, but recently, Yeats has taken his place. Whatever, I say. I have always loved Robert Frost's poems, though many of them are dark with the legends of the Vermont hills. You are surely correct about Steinbeck, a man with a strong and generous heart who put People of good will ahead of "Great Men" in his affections and concern.

Christos wrote: "what about 2010 books? are they listed"

Try the 21st Century list. http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/7....

Removed for not being first published in the 20th Century:

Complete Stories and Poems of Edgar Allan Poe - Mr. Poe died in 1849
The Book of Mormon - 1830
The Kite Runner - 2003
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - 2003
The Awakening, by Kate Chopin - 1899
The Da Vinci Code - 2003
The Picture of Dorian Gray - 1891
Leaves of Grass - Though Mr. Whitman kept publishing his poetry under the same title, he died in 1892
The Zookeeper's Wife - 2007
Gulliver's Travels - 1726

Note: Left His Dark Materials the trilogy on the list, although the third volume was not published in the 20th Century. Ditto for Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf; the poem itself is a thousand years old; the translation is modern. (So I left it.)

Gary wrote: "Jane Austen? Oscar Wilde? Louisa May Alcott? Charles Dickens? William Shakespeare? Alexandre Dumas? Bram Stoker's Dracula?

None of those are 20th century."

LOL ba-a-a-a-aaaa-a

How about more mainstream as in "A Stone for Danny Fisher" by Harold Robbins and the Sydney Sheldon books, Tom Clancy and John Le Carre (Smiley's People was absolutely great).

Why don't you vote for them?

The form to add books to the list is at the right-hand side of the list.

Saddam City is one of 100 book in one few books around the world if we look about the true literature.

'For love of Mary Kate' by Hazel McIntyre
Wonderful compelling read and socila history of 1920s rural Ireland...

No Native Son, or Jean Toomer Cane. Their Eyes Were Watching God got a nod though so cool. the lists wack anyways but yeah.

Chip we have the same tastes But What about Jane Austen??????? Oh lol 20th Century, she was in the 19th Century, my bad.

uh. well. could someone juts fix the problem?

If something isn't on the list anywhere that you think should be, add it. That's the point.

jessica juniper wrote: "There are several books on here that are not from the 20th Century...Jane Austen, The Brontes, and Joyce plus many more...can someone fix this please!"

Joyce is 20th century...

Jane wrote: "Henry James is missing, sorely. Too much JK Rowling and CS Lewis. "

I'm SO WITH YOU on Henry James! At least Wharton made it.

You could vote for them.

where's kafka's Trial?!

You could vote for it.

I think that the Harry Potter series are good books but they are talked about ALL the time or put in lists all the time. People should focus on other good books as well.

What seems to be needed is a variety of lists--say, 100 best adolescent books where Harry Potter could proudly be listed, 100 best children's books, 100 best adult books, all subdivided by century of publication. Perhaps even further subdivided by genre--nonfiction vs. fiction, poetry vs. prose vs. playscript. Crossover books could be in more than one list. I agree that seeing kids reading and excited about books is to be encouraged, but watching Harry Potter books listed among Nobel Prize winning authors is rather ludicrous. Lord of the Rings series is genre-defining and worthy of note, but not very well written, IMO. As for genre-defining, "Green Eggs and Ham" could claim the same, but should certainly not be listed alongside LOTR. Just sayin'...

I am only ten and I have no idea what you are talking about!!!!!!

I don't pay attention to date's or author i just like to read it.

Robert Penn Warren - All the King's Men "And all times are one time, and all those dead in the past never lived before our definition gives them life, and out of the shadow their eyes implore us. That is what all of us historical researchers believe. And we love truth."

The first Harry Potter WAS actually published in the 20th century. Somewhere around 1998 I believe. Still 20th century.

Actually, the first four were published in the 20th century - 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.

Maybe the list should be re-titled: Best Loved Books of 20th Century Readers

This is list is an abomination. Forget about all those inclusions from either the 19th or 21st century, it is completely randomly ordered. Some of the best, most important books are missing. Many really bad, pop fiction are included alongside great pieces of literature. Delete this list and remove all trace of it ever having existed. Where's Kafka's The Trial? Where is the Great non-English literature? Why is the Fountainhead ahead of the Sound and the Fury? Where is Thomas Mann? Gunter Grass? Italo Calvino? Ok there is Hesse, and Eco but then Harry Potter is number six when masterworks like Ulysses and the To the Lighthouse are so low on the list?

What are the 19th and 21st century (2001 or later, per this list's description) books? I'll be happy to remove them.

The order is "random" because this is a popular list (currently over 14,000 voters), not one created by professional critics.

"The King James Bible" and "The Book of Mormon" weren't first written in the 20th century.

Would you happen to remember what page you saw them on?

I read a book last year that was about a man searching for his true love through being reborn. She had been married to someone bad (his brother?) and he rescued her then after his death and rebirth he continued to look for her. I now cannot remember the name or the author of this book. does anyone know?

I don't care for the term "Best of" anything...especially for books, movies, music or other creative works. It's so arrogant and totalitarian, for one thing, and for another it's completely meaningless. Just because a lot of people like something doesn't mean it's "better" than another thing. It just means a lot of people like it. I for one have books on my list that are considered "great" books in the Western Canon (whatever that means), as well as popular (borderline "pulp") fiction, and have enjoyed both genres equally. Maybe these lists should be renamed "Books A Lot of People Really Like", which would be more accurate and far less dictatorial.

More or less, there were some really good books in there. Some that I read and wouldn't read again but nontheless, were really good!

Hahahaha. Some of you guys are so right.

ummm if they had to choose best books of the 20th century the list would be completely different. I think they mean the best books TODAY, not based on when the book was released... Let's not forget many of these authors did not receive true fame until long after they died.

This is a waste of time--comments from 2008 are the most recent and I have spent an hour going through these books, what I read and didn't like, what I never read and 2008 is the latest comments you have on this site. Please, spare us the nonsense. I would really like to know what someone in 2011 thinks and reads and recommends. What a waste!

Did you go to the most recent page of comments?

Another worthless list on Goodreads. There are books published after 2001 FFS. This list is a waste of time.

It is hard for librarians to remove them if people complain about them in general, but don't mention specific titles or locations.

David wrote: "Another worthless list on Goodreads. There are books published after 2001 FFS. This list is a waste of time."

David, How many such lists have you wasted your time commenting upon ?

David wrote: "Another worthless list on Goodreads. There are books published after 2001 FFS. This list is a waste of time."

Don't be a douche. These lists are compiled by users. They don't descend from heaven on stone tablets. Librarians edit them to make them more accurate.

There are Librarians here? Who knew?

To quote NBC, "the more you know!"

Ok Susanna, if I find books out of place I'll quote them with page Number so somebody can delete them. Thanks

Mmmm .... To kill a mocking bird in number 1..... The lord of the rings,as a single book has 2221 votes, putting it in 4th place, but each book separetly has 1664...adding those toghether leave 3885... definitely in second place :p
BUT still below To kill...
personaly (and i believe universaly),Tolkien's masterpiece is a greater story in every sense and a better classic. it should be in first place.. <3
RINGER for life

I miss an Agatha Christie book in the first 100 books.