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

I agree - he wrote a true masterpiece !

Lotta things misplaced. but it's okay.

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 ...

There are lots that are not.

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.

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?

m

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 :-)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Was John cheever represented?

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower!!

Seriously? Paulo Coelho, among the best ones? You gotta be kidding me.

Who the fuck would honestly think "Harry Potter" is better than Joyce, Faulkner, or Kafka? Idiots and teenager are the only people I could imagine, and they should not be talking about 20th century lit.

And fuck "To Kill a Mockingbird"

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."

I agree! Why is this?

Ioulia wrote: "Uhmmm.... It's been said a lot so far but, really, Joyce's "Ulysses" -as well as many other books- are NOT from the 20th century. I feel ashamed because I voted for Joyce -as I'm currently reading ..."

why do people keep saying this? You know the 20th century is the 1900s, right? Joyce published "U" in 1922, or thereabouts, and the story takes place in 1904. If you're reading it, why don't you look on the copyright page?

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."

Yes, some of these books I saw I wasn't sure were in the 20th century. Like Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire? Didn't that come out in 2000 or something?

really Charlie and the choc factory,green eggs and ham,the lorax on the same list as Lord of the Rings.....I think not,how do they compare?
In my literal world ,they dont.

Please remove "Ulysses", you're insulting it horribly, that's not cool at all

Roxanne wrote: "The Tin Drum must be among the top 100...BB"

I totally agree. Excellent book, worthy of being here!

bryan wrote: "It's called the "best books" of the 20th century, so why does everyone seem to be restricting themselves to novels?"

That's all most people ever read...

not the most well-designed list, for sure. Tried to add Simple Prayers, by Michael Golding, which was published in 1996, and it was rejected as being not from the 20th century.

Harry wrote: "What about anything from the truest 20th Century literature form, the comic book? Practically anything from Alan Moore should be considered for the list, specially Watchmen and V for Vendetta. Sin ..."

"truest 20th century literature form" — what?

I can't find Kundera or Mishima in the top 600, giving up.

So many books missing. Who makes up the list

It is true Henry James' novels should be a part of this list!

It doesn't make sense including the entire Chronicles of Narnia and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Same with The Lord of the Rings and the books separately. Go with one or the other

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."

Yes, apparently some of our readers are veritable geniuses.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was released in 2000.

bryan wrote: "It's called the "best books" of the 20th century, so why does everyone seem to be restricting themselves to novels?"

I just added R. D. Laing stuff - 20th cenutry genius

Yes, "The Unvanquished" is fab. Like "Intruder in the Dust". However, my top favourite continues to be "Absalom, Absalom!"

Faulkner's best is The Unvanquished.

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

Borges and Vonnegut are both on there, more than once for each of them...

I miss more works by William Faulkner. Where is "Absalon, Absalon!", where is "As I lie dying", where is "Light in August"?
Were we choosing the best literature of the gratest money-makers within literature? I ask this because I am astonished at so many "Harry Potters" and so few Margaret Atwoods (The Blind Assassin, Alias Grace).

Marcus wrote: "Did I miss Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture?

Pretty big book of the 90's...it, ya know, coined the name ofr an entire generation...

There's a lot of books on this list, I could have..."

It's there.

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

St. Exupery is on the list. Twice. The Little Prince and Wind, Sand and Stars.