The Perks of Being a Wallflower!!

Harry Potter has no place being on this list, but the majority of the others seems to be good choices, especially the top 50. I disagree with The Stand also. I wouldn't put any of King's books up there, but if I did it would the The Shining or Misery, not The Stand.

Who created this list? As previously mentioned, a lot of these weren't written in the 20th century. I also don't relate to many of the titles as the "best" of the 20th century. Really? The "best"? How disappointing.

Yukiko wrote: "Who created this list? As previously mentioned, a lot of these weren't written in the 20th century. I also don't relate to many of the titles as the "best" of the 20th century. Really? The "best"? How disappointing. "

Yukiko, please leave a note for a librarian to delete any entries which weren't published in the 20th century.

As for who created this list, nearly 29 thousand people created it. The rankings are the collective opinion of all those voters. Obviously the more voters in any list, the more likely that better-known books will rise to the top. A million Goodreads members have read To Kill A Mockingbird, fewer than a thousand have read Beware of Pity. It is the same with all mass-participation lists (e.g. the IMDb Top 250).

Now this is a list that actually contains good books.

"Best Books Ever" is a joke. The Hunger Games isn't exactly the best book of all time.

I can't believe that to kill a mocking bird isn't in the top 50, let alone the top 200! Really?!

Chris wrote: "I can't believe that to kill a mocking bird isn't in the top 50, let alone the top 200! Really?!"

Um, it'spaced at number 1on this list; not sure how you missed that

That said, it doesn't deserve to be placed on such a list; it's manipulative tripe that manages to combine to a bullshit view of innocence and weak themes of prejudice into a work of incredibly mediocre writing I'd expect the average high schooler capable of. I thought goodreads would be able to see beyond such a weak effort of coming of age story/social commentary and give the number 1 spot to something good like "Ulysses" or "Catch-22", but I was wrong; I guess the mindset of a 10-year old who hasn't read any other book and declares TKaMB to be the "best book ever" is still very much imbedded in the average reader.

Wow someone's pissy Jesus. And I'm 16 and the kid of two english teachers, so mr professor expert, calm down and wake up.

Was John cheever represented?

Not even one to represent the works of J. P. Donleavy or Walter Macken - yet there are at least three Pokemon??

Also, if it were up to me I would put Misery and The Shining

But theses books interest only people that enjoy horror, so no, these don't belong on this list.

Marie wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Did I miss something? I didn't see Le Miserables on the list???"

Les Miserables is a difficult book that only interests people that are into historical fiction. Even though it appeal..."

Or maybe because "Les Miserables" was published in FUCKING 1862

There are so many bad books on this list, hard to keep count. If it's taught in high school there is a good chance it is not a best book. The best books are not the most popular books.

Jeff wrote: "Marie wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Did I miss something? I didn't see Le Miserables on the list???"

Les Miserables is a difficult book that only interests people that are into historical fiction. Even th..."

And no need to start using vulgar words. It makes it hard to take you seriously. You sound like a moron.

Wifey wrote: "Why isn't Celine or Saint Exupéry or Borges on this list? I call bullshit. Or i don't know... Vonnegut?"

you are absolutely right. Maybe people who make up this list do not read very much, do not know about publication dates, or, but I'm a Luddite, are very very young.

Elizabeth wrote: "I saw so many of my all time favorites! Mists of Avelon, Rebecca, Diary of Anne Frank, James and the Giant Peach even The Witching Hour! WOW! I guess as much as I read I consider something reall..."

Yep! That's my criterion, too. If you are a serious reader (e.g.,read more than you watch tv or play with ipod, iphone, Apple) you recall only the extraordinary voices.

Nathanimal wrote: "The Book of Mormon? #4? Really guys?

It's not even very well written! Despite being published in 1830 (and written, allegedly, mosty in the B.C.E)"

Silly, isn't it?

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!"

5 years later...I appreciate your point, but Joyce was all 20th century. Not that I read it or anything.

Hi everyone,

I have created a new group called Goodreads All Sorts and I'd love for people to join it or just even just give it a look. It's a group that discusses anything and everything. There will be monthly group reads, movies, and music. There is a folder for everything you could think of. I'd really like if people could spread the word because I'd love for the group to be a success. Here is the link to the group:

http://www.goodreads.com/group/show/9...

Thanks very much,
Jack :-)

m

Now that I read these posts, I realize how many should not have been there and how many should have that were left off. Yes, what ABOUT Miller?

Who cares if its not 20th century books? Okay, okay for consistency's sake, but seriously this is the first list on goodreads I agree with. "To Kill a Mockingbird" is a brilliant novel.

There are lots that are not.

Well, since the list is named "best books of the 20th century" it IS relevant whether or not the books included are from the 20th century. Just my twopence worth ...

Lotta things misplaced. but it's okay.

Giovany wrote: "apoyen a Proust!!!!!!
lets stand for proust!!!!
aller Marcel, il est fantastique"

I agree - he wrote a true masterpiece !