Comments on Best Books Ever - page 52
Comments Showing 2,551-2,600 of 4,706 (4706 new)
I am hoping for The Vampire Lestat or The Interview with the Vampire to become the number one best book ever.Those two books most certainly deserve to be aknowledged as number one, in my personal opinion.
Truly two wonderful books to read.
Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "I'm still pulling for the yellow pages."Haha. Don't post any spoilers, I've almost finished it.
After that go for the Unabridged Webster's Dictionary. All the books in the world in one volume.I can't understand why these books aren't here.....
The list starts off with Twilight and Harry Potter thus making the title of the list invalid... Popularity doesn't mean the book is worth two shites.
Marla wrote: "this is the second list--worst books was the first--and i'm done. this is madness. i mean, how many mormons congregated to vote the book of mormon as a top 100 book? really?"Well, it IS in the top 100--of Fiction, like most religious books, though not certain books in the Hebrew OT: 1st and 2nd Kings, 1st and 2nd Samuel.
Oh look, Hunger Games, Twilight and Harry Potter at the top of a list of best books ever. Proof that Goodreads is ruled by 14-year-old girls, I suppose.Look, I get that taste and opinion are individual, relative, and subjective, but pop democracy has failed literature on this one, haha. The top choices range from irredeemably dire (Twilight) to poor (Hunger Games) to decent (Harry Potter).
I'm not a lit snob, either. Most of what I read is genre fiction, since that's what interests me and what I write. In literary circles, my preferred genres of fantasy and science fiction are widely regarded as largely worthless by small-minded elitists who don't recognize that humanity and value are no less possible in fantastic settings than mundane ones.
But the stories holding the top spots here are not (in my opinion) great fiction, regardless of genre. While I don't read a ton of YA fiction, I have no vendetta against the bracket itself, but the popularity of these particular books baffles me a bit. Twilight? REALLY? Bad vampire fetish fiction about a spoiled, mopey, hyper-dependent girl with no personality of her own who bases her happiness and identity around her abusive douchebag of a boyfriend who also happens to want to eat her? In the hands of a more capable writer who understands what character development is, the core premise could, perhaps, at least make for a half-engaging tragedy, but Stephenie Meyer doesn't mine any of what little potential is present in that seed. It's a HORRIBLE book, and it can't even be called harmless trash because it's marketed to young girls who definitely do not need that sort of example presented as a positive. Bella is an anti-feminist, one-dimensional trainwreck. I didn't like the Hunger Games either, but at least its protagonist had agency. At least Katniss, while she's not really any more interesting, is more stable and capable of thinking and acting for herself.
Katniss is prevented from being interesting by her suppression of empathy and her lack of conflict (yes, I know she fights people and then starts a revolution, but that's a plot conflict rather than an internal one. She's so matter-of-fact about it all that she ends up feeling passive rather than driving the story. I suppose the love triangle subplot also brings in some conflict of sorts, but it's so deeply contrived and irritating that I couldn't bring myself to engage in any part of it). Some would say this is how her struggle to survive is portrayed, but it's uninteresting from a narrative standpoint. I would find her more interesting if she was more proactive in some way. Give her shades of grey by making her act pre-emptively rather than taking the easy way out by never allowing her to kill anyone except in self-defense. Present her with the moral dilemma of necessity vs. atrocity, and don't let her take any obvious choices. Hunger Games isn't BAD, but it's not worthy of the kind of obsession it's somehow garnered. It's a paint-by-numbers post-apocalypse story with bland but acceptable characters. It's not original, but I don't think you have to be if you're a good enough writer. But it's all so sterile and emotionally blank. Nobody seems to CARE about anything, and while I can see how it could be argued that that's because they're all broken by their awful world and oppressive government, that doesn't hold water to me. One or two or a few people being so stoic about it would be character traits. What could be an interesting study of human fear, obligation, and horror is instead a strangely empty vessel. Spread across the entire world, it demonstrates a flaw in the writer.
You can have a weak plot or weak characters and still come out with a solid book, but you can't lack both at the same time without everything falling apart. It all ends up feeling ironically bloodless. There's no energy to the proceedings at all. Even the supposedly brutal violence that caused some controversy is sterile and dull. It's so SAFE. No risks are taken.
And it's funny to me how a plot that many have compared to modern-day reality TV taken to its logical extremes is so eager to be what it could easily be critical of. In the first book, the reader becomes just one more viewer watching the Hunger Games on TV. It's voyeuristic, bland, and feels hastily cobbled together, just like so much reality programming. Rather than choosing to reflect in an interesting manner on its subject, it simply emulates it. There's an opportunity here to try to make the reader feel uncomfortable with their 'participation', but it's summarily ignored. Collins wouldn't need to moralize, but the story would be much better if she'd at least given us something to think about, and the transition into the revolution plot post-book-1 could have had higher stakes and dug deeper into the questions of human nature and freedom at the core.
As for Harry Potter, I don't hate it, but I do find it frustratingly mediocre. It's been an incredible cultural phenomenon, but it's genuinely nothing special. It's just good fun at best. J.K. Rowling is great at worldbuilding and tone, but her characters are flat and excessively archetypical. Also, for a series structured as a bildungsroman, it's very strange to reach the end and find the protagonist unchanged. Harry is EXACTLY the same character at the end of the series as he was when it began. He's static, and that's irritating. Even the more likable characters are, for the most part, arc-free. I feel like the series should have been about Neville instead. He changes and grows and learns. Harry feels more like a spectator observing an interesting setting and interesting characters rather than a being in his own right.
DIG DEEPER. My opinions are my own, and you don't have to agree with them, but experience more. The first stories that really and truly sink their hooks into your heart may not be the best things you'll ever read. You may even look at them later and wonder why you enjoyed them as much as you did, and that's not something to fear, it's something to treasure. Examine WHY you like the things you do, and look at what came before to influence them. If they're old enough, look what came after that TOOK influence from them. When you re-read them, look for weaknesses within your favorite things. They're not perfect; I guarantee you'll find some. And when you find them, you don't have to let them ruin your enjoyment of that thing. If your views on something do change, though, try to figure out how YOU changed, because chances are the text hasn't.
if i see one more Steven king book on this list....
Oh, really? 5 Harry Potter books BEFORE 'To Kill a Mockingbird'?
"The b.of Mormon" ?? I don t understand that. I have tried to read it. VERY strange. HELP!
nicola wrote: "proof that the truth is not democratic =/seriously, jane austen? errughhh."
You and Mark Twain, anti-Austen. What you two may not understand is how Austen took her great defeat, in early 19C Britworld, and made it into very high comedy: marriage arrangements among her class and above. (She a mere parson's daughter. But Check out the parsons in her novels--some hilarious ones.)
When I first taught an Austen at a MA community college, my students hated it, and I understood--there ARE no Americans in Austen. (But none in Shakespeare, either--except possibly Malvolio, who is treated as crazy for wanting to marry his boss: it took 200 years and a revolution for this idea to seem even possible, a very American idea.) But I eventually settled on Persuasion, the best account of male vanity, better even than Ted Knight on the Mary Tyler Moore Show.
nicola wrote: "proof that the truth is not democratic =/seriously, jane austen? errughhh."
I hate Jane Austen.
So many books, so little time, but I'm regaining my speed reading, so that helps.
haha! love that comment!Marla wrote: "this is the second list--worst books was the first--and i'm done. this is madness. i mean, how many mormons congregated to vote the book of mormon as a top 100 book? really?"
i admire Stephenie Meyer,she has a beautiful mind
Josef wrote: "Todd wrote: "Josef -- I certainly didn't mean to be offensive or to put you on the defensive. It was only a poor attempt at making an ironic statement. This is why I usually keep my opinions out ..."And Stephen King does have the ability to scare himself, no small talent. He has written very well, a memory of his college teacher, in Swarthmore Remembered (or something like that). So even Stephen King has written well, though the US industry has rewarded quite other talents.
nicola wrote: "proof that the truth is not democratic =/seriously, jane austen? errughhh."
Boring.......but have to do what you have to do. Movies are good for notes.:)
Greg wrote: "Wow, some of these folks need to read more. Or age more. Or go to school, or something. I mean, really."I read at least one book a day.
I'm so glad to see there's no James Joyce or Samuel Beckett here
The idiots won't ruin them for me
The idiots won't ruin them for me
I looked over the list of books, and must say this. There are alot of great books on the list and alot I don't care for. I will say this if you love to read thats all that counts for me and most people. There will always be different types of books wirtten for every ones taste, so just Enjoy!! What you like.!!
The four Twilight books are in top 15. I am out of here.
A very small number of people vote here. You need several million to even look for results.
99 Problems wrote: "lol @ twilight & the hunger games"I like your avatar :)
I'm voting for the Hunger Games it's so awsome!
I agree Angel, "Hunger Games" is a great movie as well the Triology in books.What do you think about the "Harry Potter" Series, both books and the movies?
Twilight rules!!! The romance is Epic!!!
I enjoyed The Hunger Games a lot, and Harry Potter is fantastic, obviously.But "Best Books EVER"? Really? And let's not even get started on Twilight...
I feel like the bar has been set so terribly low. When I think of "Best Books EVER" I think of books that will be considered Classics in a century, or half a century. The thought of Twilight being on a Classics list makes me want to curl up and die.
Can the books on this list be entertaining? Well, yes. But there's a difference between entertainment and clear cut brilliance.
/my two cents that no one cares about
Emma wrote: "Twilight rules!!! The romance is Epic!!!"Not sure if trolling or serious
I'm still holding out for the Yellow Pages.
So this list was basically made by people who can't read, right? Or by the International Internet Trolls Association?
The IITA, you know about the IITA???!!! I knew it! They're part of the Illuminati....Keep your head down I think they contract with the "Wet Works Mennonites" to keep their existence quiet.
ok so starting from 14 up it becomes the most absurd ever list
Have you seen the worst list???? Just as absurd.
Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "The IITA, you know about the IITA???!!! I knew it! They're part of the Illuminati....Keep your head down I think they contract with the "Wet Works Mennonites" to keep their existence quiet."
lol
wow. can't really take the users of Goodreads very seriously when The Hunger Games, Harry Potter, and Twilight are considered the "Best Books Ever".
Twilight? Really? It should be on a list for worst books ever! And Hunger Games shouldn't even be on there! It's popular but I wouldn't consider it one of the best. It's only been out for 4 years! Harry Potter has been out for 14!
Most of the "users of Goodreads" you're talking about have learned that these lists are only good for laughs. Try checking out the Groups where you'll find discussions of everything from children's lit to the classics.These lists are at best popularity contests and the votes are heavily weighted to popular youth reads.
In the top ten are Hunger Games, Twilight, and Harry Potter? Give me a break.
Harry Potter is a good book. A few books even have small Harry Potter references. Like the Gone series and Maximum Ride.
This list is an exemplar for the democratic process and as such displays the total uselessness of lists on the internet.I regret taking the time to peruse this nonsense & driven to protest in this comment.
Exactly this. Right now, Twilight is number one. I have read the entire series, and am therefore entitled to say that I hate them, that they're badly written, that they send bad messages to teenage girls and boys alike.