Comments on Best Books Ever - page 56
Comments Showing 2,751-2,800 of 4,706 (4706 new)
Ok. Seriously? THE GIVING TREE? That's one of the worst children's books EVER. I HATED it when I was a child, closely followed by the Pied Piper, both of which have such HAPPY ENDINGS. Like, you know, getting so old you're about to wither away, and your favorite tree's head has been cut off or, say, never seeing any of the village's childran ever again?WHO VOTED FOR THE GIVING TREE?
~sigh~
At least there's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Pride and Prejudice, and The Princess Bride. Hunger Games number one?? No, I mean, it was good, but most definitely not the Best Book Ever. Same goes for Twilight, although I wouldn't even call THAT one "good."
Most of this list, I'm happy to see, is full of classics, many of which I'd like to read and haven't. Several of those books which aren't classics, however, I'm disappointed with.
Trouble here is the list title. "Best books" sounds objective, but, hey, what are the criteria? People would be more relaxed with "Most influential", "Greatest impact", even, "Books I love the most". Because, after all, choosing the list is subjective, very. In case anyone hasn't said it, no-one should be denigrated for their taste in literature, no matter how bad. What the book has meant to the reader is the important thing. Now, how are we going to measure that?
Phillip wrote: "Trouble here is the list title. "Best books" sounds objective, but, hey, what are the criteria? People would be more relaxed with "Most influential", "Greatest impact", even, "Books I love the most..."You absolutely agree with you
Best Books Ever to me means literature able to stand the test of time. To be counted as a "Best Book" the author should have well developed characters, a plot that works, language that enhances the storyline and is believable for the characters, an excellent use of setting, and a theme that enriches the reading experience.
"Best Books Ever to me means literature able to stand the test of time." True. So how do we evaluate contemporary literature? And what about genre work: for me, Philip K Dick posts important social commentary equal to Swift's; for others he's just a SF writer. Can we get non fiction on such a list? I thought "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" was an important book, for instance.
It's apparent many readers here like genre fiction, hence the Stephen King and JK Rowling titles. I happen to prefer Ursula Le Guin, but a hell of a lot of people like Rowling. So I think a few new lists are needed: Best Fantasy Novels, for instance, would be a lot less controversial.
I agree with you, Phil. I think genre novels can stand the test of time and contemporary literature can be written well enought that it will stand the test of time. Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee certainly deserves a place on any list of "Best". That said, I also see many books on the list that are "popular" as oppposed to powerfully written.
Perhaps we could see the list as in evolution. If, instead of being dissatisfied, we could all add our own 100 best books, it would be more representative. Now, it just represents the preferences of those who have voted. Same with any list really (I have the same problem with AFI's list of 100 best movies). It can only be uncontentious if the list title is: eg "10 Best Novels with the word 'eggshells' in the title". To practice what I preach I am now posting my own list, which contains only 4 titles in the present list, so I expect to see them eventually, all at the bottom.
I came back, mostly because my cousin told me to not be a dick. My attitude mostly relates to my not wanting to be a member of a community that rates crap as being "THE BEST EVER," but I can just as easily ignore them. The thing is, most of the stuff on top of this list probably isn't going to be taught in a classroom or even mentioned a couple decades from now (I'm shooting for a career as a lit. prof., I'll update this in 2033). Meanwhile, the greats, some of them over hundreds of years old, are standards and will continually be taught/forced upon bored highschoolers.
Phillip wrote: "Trouble here is the list title. "Best books" sounds objective, but, hey, what are the criteria? People would be more relaxed with "Most influential", "Greatest impact", even, "Books I love the most..."+1
Btw, this is an ongoing discussion: if you check the comments ten or twenty pages ago, you'll see the same arguments being raised--and then being swept along by the torrent of "I HATED this" and "OMG! Why is that?!".
I'd only like to add that to me, "best" is nowhere near objective. It is an adjective of personal judgment--perhaps THE adjective of personal judgment.
And as to how we measure what books have influenced--moved, shaped--us the most: I like your approach. :)
Point taken Kalin. I had not the heart to read almost 3,000 comments, only a few. As for 'best', of course it's not an objective term. Yet it sounds objective, that's why people squabble over lists like this. As a previous poster noted, the criteria is number of votes, with no critiques given for the chosen title(s), so the list is really the most popular (among those who voted), not the best, no matter what you call it. I started to vote, but I stopped when I realised my vote, just as in politics, wouldn't count. This is a best seller list (I'm sure someone else has said it) not a list for those who want literary discussion.
Phillip wrote: "I started to vote, but I stopped when I realised my vote, just as in politics, wouldn't count."Ouch! You should--just as in politics ;)--NEVER do that. :)
A practical consideration: I looked at pages 10 to 20 of the list and realized that currently, if only 30 readers vote for a particular book, it will make Top 1000 (page 10). Which increases its chances of being noticed by other readers. And that's a worthy goal in itself, is it not?
(With politics, it's the same principle--only more complicated. We'll leave it for another discussion board. ;)
P.S. And there has been some literary discussion, even on a list like this. Here's an easy way to filter it: Look at only those comments that are at least ten lines long. ;)
You've made me laugh Kalin, thanks. I think the Twilight fans will continue to ignore Mockingbird, no matter where they each are on the list, and vice versa. Perhaps I'm a cynic. Best to more clearly define the list (and get rid of the pesky word 'best'). As for politics, I'm a follower of George Carlin. You can't blame ME when those political jokes get elected. I'm looking for a new breed of politician. There must be some meatier lists on Goodreads, like "Ten best first novels", or "Greatest autobiographical fiction". I'll go see.
Phillip wrote: "I think the Twilight fans will continue to ignore Mockingbird, no matter where they each are on the list, and vice versa."But what about the curious minds? The ones that are not governed by "Fanboydom (or is 'fanguydom' more PC?) forevah!" or "I'm a Serious Student of Stuff, ergo I shall not stoop to trying such trivialities"? The ones like...well, like you, perhaps?
(You're welcome. :)
Please tell us if you find those meatier lists. It's tiring to have to vote again, and again, and again--but if it's worth it, it'll be done.
Tried my hand at making one. The Most Influential Novels. No-one else had given it a go.
Phillip wrote: "Tried my hand at making one. The Most Influential Novels. No-one else had given it a go."Now that would be a hard question to answer. How do we measure influence? Influence on what or whom?
I wouldn't dare vore on a list with such a title. I don't feel up to the task.
You measure influence by reading books. Some books follow trends, some create them. Some books initiate social change (Uncle Tom's Cabin), some influence literary style (Ulysses). Influence, unlike 'best', can be gauged. But how much influence a book has should have you looking at genres, history, and the ways books are presented to readers. Too hard, eh?
Phillip wrote: "But how much influence a book has should have you looking at genres, history, and the ways books are presented to readers. Too hard, eh?"Absolutely.
And not exactly measurable either. Who's going to decide if John Dos Passos's work had an actual impact on Stand on Zanzibar? How about a recent case I had: a lovely Pratchettesque debut novel by an author who says she never read Pratchett in her life?
I already made a similar argument a couple thousand comments ago: What we call 'classics' today is mostly a measure of what has had the good fortune of being noticed by people in power: figures of authority, or voices with authority (there's no great difference, down below). Yes, most of these books have literary merits too; but so have thousands of other books which have NOT been noticed or promoted by a recognizable authority--haven't "created a trend", in your words.
So, basically, your list would be a repetition of what textbooks have to tell us. Or am I missing a point?
Missing the opportunity to add your own experience, and views, to the "textbook" view. Isn't that what these lists are about, a way of democratising the literary viewpoint? You have said, haven't you, that it is important to vote, so as to influence the list. And you're cheating a bit by looking at exact influence ie how what one writer does can be copied by another. True, that is murky ground. Influence is more in what topics are covered, or what treatment and viewpoint given (as in influence of the cinema, for example, on description of environment.) But if you feel Brunner's book was influenced by Dos Passos's, it's a valid viewpoint, one I haven't seen before. As for culture as power, it's true that revolutionaries become reactionaries when successful, but works of literary merit can be, should be, disestablishing before they become cultural albatrosses to intimidate the young. Crime and Punishment was once a good read.
Phillip wrote: "Influence is more in what topics are covered, or what treatment and viewpoint given"My point, then, is: How do we decide that the topics Book X covers, etc., are significant? Or that it provides the most profound/thorough/you-come-up-with-your-own-definition-of-"influential" treatment of them? Or that it was the first, the seminal work?
(That last consideration is devilishly tricky in itself: it requires us to go back and read the authors that our own "most influential" authors have been influenced by, directly or implicitly. And then go back to those authors and their influences. And then ... where do we stop?)
I, for one, can't cope with such a task. I find it staggering. Therefore, it feels unfair (to me) to offer any opinion. Therefore, I cannot vote on such a list in good conscience.
On the other hand, I can vote on this list easily--I only need to assume "best" means "the ones that most influenced ME". :)
And so, here we see what MANY people consider to be the "best" books. That's democratic, to me. :)
P.S. The Stand on Zanzibar example was an easy one. I think Brunner himself said he borrowed some structural tricks from Dos Passos. My second example was the really hard one to judge and draw conclusions from.
I would like to offer a different sort of understanding of what "best" books are and what such lists mean.What I offer is not complicated: the perception of literary quality/ies has always been a matter not of how you rate books but how you talk about them. And even as rating goes, a numerical list is a poor choice of method; it provides a starting point for a discussion, I guess, but it's rarely a starting point for a good discussion.
So there, my drop of tar. Sorry if I've indirectly offended someone.
Hey, Kalin, you're making a mountain of a molehill. You contribute to a 'most influential' list by giving your opinion, just as you do to a 'best' list. And if not, that's fine by me. Just as hard, for me, would be to decide which authors have influenced me. Yet I can do it.
Emanuil, if only people would talk about their books! Instead of saying, this list is lousy, why is this title on it etc. My view is that we have a problem with the term 'best', as one person's best is another's worst. Conversation is always hardest when all concerned are not clear what they are talking about. Now, the books I love the most, that's clear.
I find it best to approach book conversation a little bit more like a collection of observations and less like an aggregate of judgements in one form or another. (Be they a number from 1 to 10 or a bunch of epithets ranging from "the worst" to "the best", repeated over and over in one's "opinion".)General statemets are usually very crude markers of the honest impression you've had of a book and very good markers of some impression you want to make on the people you're talking to. The latter will always happen anyway, you might as well go for a the richer and more rewarding sort of impression, even if you open yourself to embarrassment or ridicule for reading in a particular way.
Always best to show people you're reading in a particular way, not just slapping dumb sh*t around like "a real tour-de-force!" "heart-rending!", etc.
You have something essential there Emanuil. Like, in talking of how some person has affected you, better to say to them, you make me feel this, or I was affected that way, than to remark, you're just the kind of person who would say that, or, that was unjust. No different with books. Honesty is the best policy.
My "best" books and the (very general) reasons for picking them are here:http://www.goodreads.com/list/comment...
About most of them, I've talked at length. However, it's only The Last Unicorn I've discussed in English:
http://choveshkata.net/blog/?p=105
And it's not as personal a response as I'd write should I consider the novel from the "real changing force" (...whut was 'em other force? :D) angle.
It was tour-de-, and no, I can't tell you exactly what that is either :D By the way, the sort of response I have in mind can't be anything but personal. You're basically laying yourself open as a reader instead of relying ot thunderous generalities :)
I stopped reading after I saw Hunger Games rated as the BEST book ... ever. LOL.
It's a magic list Nancy. The more you vote for non fiction titles the higher up the list they show. Right now there are several NF titles near the 6,000 mark. Needs a lot of votes. Near the top are a lot of fantasy fiction titles. This doesn't mean these are really 'the best books', but that fantasy fans have responded more enthusiastically than others. The list reflects the tastes of those who respond. Not an objective, measured assessment of what the best books are. Maybe Goodreads staff could make that one!
I am surprised "The Kite Runner" didn't make the cut. Another thing, ALL of the Twilight books are on the list? I read them, they are addictive but they aren't good, does that even make sense? "Interview with a Vampire" should have been on the list if Vampire books were to be represented at all. However, these books are what people are reading so it definately is representative in that aspect.
"I read them, they are addictive but they aren't good, does that even make sense?" Nope, but I think the same thing I watch "Cheaters".
Tiffany wrote: "I read them, they are addictive but they aren't good, does that even make sense?"Patrick wrote: ""I read them, they are addictive but they aren't good, does that even make sense?" Nope, but I think the same thing I watch "Cheaters"."
Actually, it does make sense. If you think about it, a lot of addictive things are really crap...
You're layin down facts, sister. The game is rigged!Nikki wrote: "proof that the truth is not democratic =/
seriously, jane austen? errughhh."
Obviously everyone is going to vote for the book they think is the best and which is most popular among the wider audiences. Harry Potter was overthrown by Twilight which was overthrown by Hunger Games. Clearly this is a popularity contest. Well, till the next teen sensation hits the bookstores, I guess Hunger Games is the most 'in' book.
i guess youve just included all the possible books you could find!
Sarah wrote: "Greg wrote: "Wow, some of these folks need to read more. Or age more. Or go to school, or something. I mean, really."That is so true."
I think they need to age more. But at least they are reading. And I think that most of the Twilight haters have probably never even opened the book. I have to say I liked it, but I would have never put it on this list.
Truthmonkey wrote: "Obviously no one is going to agree with every book on any best or worst list, as other people have pointed out. I actually love both Jane Austen and Stephenie Meyers. Do I think they are equal in..."Hear, Hear!!
A suggestion to the Goodreads administration: Make the last comments appear on top of the list (rather than at the end, as it is now).
This may help reduce some of the redundancy and repetition.
(If anyone knows of a better place to post this suggestion, please let me know.)
oh my ......i really loved the books listed...but i still think...harry potter is the best in the list .,..thats why it should be the no. 1.....hunger games is good but i doubt its present state...
I think the majority of people are voting on their favorite books, not so much on which books are the most valuable literary achievements of all time. I find this list to be very interesting, informative and educational. It shows which books are the most appealing to the majority of readers here at goodreads, or at least those readers who are the more socially active on goodreads.
Aslaug wrote: "I find this list to be very interesting, informative and educational. It shows which books are the most appealing to the majority of readers here at goodreads, or at least those readers who are the more socially active on goodreads. "+1
I havent read half of theese books
Dear God, who defined the word best before they set up this list? This literally looks like someone with the reading and comprehension ability of an 8th grader wrote down all the popular sugary young adult they were proud of themselves for reading due to the amount of words in them and then put up a sophomoric list of classics they had heard of but had no interest in reading. If you're going to lump cultural milestones like Hamlet (which isn't even a book) or The Odyssey (also not a book) with the rest of this poppy dreck, at least have the decency to title this list "Books I've read because people told me to".
Chris wrote: "Dear God, who defined the word best before they set up this list? This literally looks like someone with the reading and comprehension ability of an 8th grader wrote down all the popular sugary you..."I agree! The first 6 books on this list are a joke. The list needs to be renamed 'top most popular books for YA and then some stuff I should be reading'
Seriously? Twilight as the first book on here? That book has horrible writing, bad plot, bad characters.... I refuse to take this list seriously.
Are you sure one list is enough reason to give up on the whole site? The majority of the reviews I see are from reasonably literate people. And the recommendations system is rather well done as well.
I'm NOT working for this site and am not looking to promote it in any way, I just feel it's rather silly, in general, to let one clumsy element spoil a whole pool of resources. You're not gonna stop going to your school just 'cause the food in the cafeteria is bad, are you? This list can easily be ignored. Don't give up on the rest.