Contemporary or classic novels, plays, poem and short story anthologies, that any serious reader should read at least ones in his or her life.
Joe
19 books
0 friends
0 friends
Ricki
5188 books
1478 friends
1478 friends
Sara
2923 books
45 friends
45 friends
Diane Wakely-Park
20 books
4 friends
4 friends
Susan
486 books
5 friends
5 friends
Benjamin
301 books
0 friends
0 friends
Hweeps
1463 books
34 friends
34 friends
Carrie
2878 books
33 friends
33 friends
More voters…
Comments Showing 1-41 of 41 (41 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
[deleted user]
(new)
Sep 16, 2012 09:31PM
Why the hell is "To Kill a Mockingbird" at number 1 and "Ulysses", the very definition of "literature", only 78. And no "Molloy" either?
reply
|
flag
I take huge issue with Animal Farm being #4. That book is boring as hell and would be considered simplistic by a 3rd grader. It's practically condescending. When my high school lit. teacher told me it was his favorite book, I lost all respect for him as a reader and writer. I made an account here just to correct this wrong.
deleted user wrote: "Why the hell is "To Kill a Mockingbird" at number 1 and "Ulysses", the very definition of "literature", only 78. And no "Molloy" either?"Probably because nobody ever actually reads "Ulysses" and people actually read "To Kill a Mockingbird"
Caleb wrote: "I take huge issue with Animal Farm being #4. That book is boring as hell and would be considered simplistic by a 3rd grader. It's practically condescending. When my high school lit. teacher told me..."Obviously you completely missed the point of the entire book.
A wrote: "Probably because nobody ever actually reads "Ulysses" and people actually read "To Kill a Mockingbird.."I voted for both but you certainly have a point there.
It also sort of works the other way around: I disliked The Catcher in the Rye for instance but would have read it anyway should I have known beforehand, even if it hadn't been compulsory reading for me at the time. Animal Farm and Lord of the Flies aren't quite my thing either but I'm still glad I've read them.
I noticed by the way that there's an emphasis on books originally published in English, as there are only a few exceptions in this Listopia at present. For me 'being well read' is not only a work in progress but it also means having read important books published originally in other languages than English (whether in a translation or in the original language) and I was wondering how others felt about this. I'm moderator of a Dutch/Flemish group and our seasonal challenges take us around the world, which made me come across some classics I'd never even heard of before. like The Rose Garden (Gulistan) of Saadi, The Book of Dede Korkut, The Ring Of The Dove or the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, for example.
By the way, have a look at the Listopia for Forbidden books (now often considered classics), because there are certainly "Books you need to read to be considered well-read" on there. The number of titles which can be found on both Listopias is stricking...
Caleb wrote: "I take huge issue with Animal Farm being #4. That book is boring as hell and would be considered simplistic by a 3rd grader. It's practically condescending. When my high school lit. teacher told me..."oh right... you get that it's a political fable that millions of people have identified with?
What happened to reading for it's own sake? What happened to picking up a book and reading it, simply to enjoy it? I've read a lot of the books on this list, not out of some ego-driven desire to flaunt my "well-read" superiority in the face of my peers, but because i held the (obviously mistaken) belief that these books have attained that lofty status of 'classic' for a reason. And that reason is simply that they are good books. I guess i've come to realize that life is too short (and my love for a book i can sink my teeth into is too great) to spend my time reading something i don't want to, just so i can say "i've read that!"
Monica wrote: "What happened to reading for it's own sake? What happened to picking up a book and reading it, simply to enjoy it? I've read a lot of the books on this list, not out of some ego-driven desire to fl..."Just ignore the title of this Listopia and vote for the books you liked or loved (a lot). That's what I did :-)
This is an exceptionally helpful list to someone such as I, whom was not given the proper 'education' in terms of reading and speech. Though I have passed Math, English, History and the like with flying colors, I find myself dumb-founded when it comes to the most basic of logic processing--the kind that reading is supposed to enhance. As I search for both entertainment and a better intelligence, I hold great appreciation to the creator of the list--putting out the most common sense of book titles out for even the most uneducated to find easily. Now, let's start with Winnie the Poo--and hopefully work our way up to The Great Gatsby.
Quint wrote: "This is an exceptionally helpful list to someone such as I, whom was not given the proper 'education' in terms of reading and speech. Though I have passed Math, English, History and the like with f..."I have to say I don't understand the draw to Gatsby... I found it no better than average. Atlas Shrugged however...
"Monica wrote: "What happened to reading for it's own sake? What happened to picking up a book and reading it, simply to enjoy it? I've read a lot of the books on this list, not out of some ego-driv..."By the way, did anyone have a look at 12 Books You NEED On Your Bookshelf :-) Very similar...
None of The Lord of the Rings books are on this list? The books that defined modern fantasy? O_o Well, consider them added now.
Only 2 women authors in the top 20? If this is what the canon looks like then we have some work to do.
Monica wrote: "What happened to reading for it's own sake? What happened to picking up a book and reading it, simply to enjoy it? I've read a lot of the books on this list, not out of some ego-driven desire to fl..."One should always read a book for its own sake; the purpose of lists (better than this one) should be to direct you to books that many people have enjoyed and been enriched by. Since joining groups focused on reading classics, I have been delighted and edifies that books I had either not heard of or might have overlooked before. Certainly, if you are reading a book with the sole goal of saying that you have, you are wasting your time.
Mel wrote: "Only 2 women authors in the top 20? If this is what the canon looks like then we have some work to do."I'm always interested in comments like this. I don't ever consider the gender of the author. If I read something I like I will up more by that person. If GR, or a friend recommends something I will look into it, but I never consider the writer's gender. I like most genres, and have enjoyed books by men and women to be sure, but gender, race, religion... whatever of the writer simply don't enter into it.
I like Oscar Wilde, but I'd prefer Gogol's "The Portrait" to The Picture of Dorian Gray, even if the former is a short story (that may have inspired Wilde's story). I'm disappointed that Gogol is overlooked altogether on this otherwise good list. His short story, "The Overcoat," is brilliant and the foundation of virtually all of Russian literature.
Tyler wrote: "Mel wrote: "Only 2 women authors in the top 20? If this is what the canon looks like then we have some work to do."I'm always interested in comments like this. I don't ever consider the gender of..."
Hello, thanks for your comment. I understand why it wouldn't occur to someone to look at the gender-- there is so much fabulous work out there. Why should the background of the author make a difference? The reason why I started looking at the gender is that I realized we are not picking up good books indiscriminately.
There are good books by people of all backgrounds, yet the ones that come into our sphere-- through networks on Goodreads, friends, publishers, articles, bookstores, etc. are not randomly ordered, because there is a historical gendered logic of access and exclusion to it. Because of this, lots of good books by men make this list here, for example, but the equally fantastic books written by women do not.
One more comment- the concept of "women exclusion" assumes an "inclusion" default, in which men are already found. If the men "category" is the default and women is the exception, then the complexity of gender in art and social spaces is already knotty. Lots to be said on this :-)
Caleb wrote: "I take huge issue with Animal Farm being #4. That book is boring as hell and would be considered simplistic by a 3rd grader. It's practically condescending. When my high school lit. teacher told me..."I am sorry, do you realize its an allegory of the Russian revolution, and everything in the book actually happened in real life? How is that simplistic?
There is an over representation of English books on this list (not that many of them aren’t rightfully classics), but I do not believe that one can be considered well-read without reading at least the major classics from around the world.And then there are books that even those who enjoyed them could not conceivably think are literature, much less belonging on this list (Twilight being a flagrant example)! Maybe I should create a new list...
Nelle wrote: "This looks overwhelmingly white. Hardly well-read."Agreed! Many of then are, of course, excellent books, but if you only read English plus a sampling of other European works, one could hardly be considered well-read.
Nelle wrote: "This looks overwhelmingly white. Hardly well-read."In Europe most authors were/are white...
Booklovinglady wrote: "Nelle wrote: "This looks overwhelmingly white. Hardly well-read."In Europe most authors were/are white..."
This all too familiar argument is really a side step (or worse, a pretense) to qualify white reading canons. There is such a fantastic history of literature from other populations. If we say that most authors from these places are white we are simply blinded to the rich contributions of women and non-white authors. Fantastic lit created by other people is minimized because we make blanket biased acceptances of what is of merit and who is producing it in Europe and America.
Booklovinglady wrote: "Nelle wrote: "This looks overwhelmingly white. Hardly well-read."In Europe most authors were/are white..."
That’s completely irrelevant. The problem is that this list, like many, is overwhelmingly authors of Europe or European descent as if the “Western canon” were the only literary tradition in the world when nothing could be further from the truth. Great works are and have long been produced around the world and one cannot be considered well-read at all if their reading has been confined to only a single tradition.
Booklovinglady wrote: "@Nelle, Mel & ErinBeing from The Netherlands, I agree to disagree."
I agree with you Booklovinglady.
I like reading lists, and there's no reason for anyone to be indignant if it doesn't match their list. There can be no definitive list like this. I would encourage you to correct the typo in the introduction (once, not ones).
James wrote: "Caleb wrote: "I take huge issue with Animal Farm being #4. That book is boring as hell and would be considered simplistic by a 3rd grader. It's practically condescending. When my high school lit. t..."No, it really is that dumb.
Jeffrey wrote: "James wrote: "Caleb wrote: "I take huge issue with Animal Farm being #4. That book is boring as hell and would be considered simplistic by a 3rd grader. It's practically condescending. When my high..."I agree. It is awful and I only gave it one star.
As usual this kind of lists are ridiculously anglo and english language centered.... gringos think the world was created like 200 years ago but always forget that humanity has been writing for like 4 thousand years ago in a large number of languages....
Nelle wrote: "This looks overwhelmingly white. Hardly well-read."Totally agree with you, but some people are used to think they are the center of the universe.... sad to see such blatant ignorance even in places where people are supposed to have a wider view of the world....
Meli wrote: "Booklovinglady wrote: "Nelle wrote: "This looks overwhelmingly white. Hardly well-read."In Europe most authors were/are white..."
This all too familiar argument is really a side step (or worse, ..."
Totally agree with you but arrogance and ignorance usually go well together....
~☆~Autumn♥♥☔ wrote: "Jeffrey wrote: "I read what I wanna read and not what other people tell me!"Very smart! Didn't school make you read some things?"
Not all of those were worth it.
Jeffrey wrote: "~☆~Autumn♥♥☔ wrote: "Jeffrey wrote: "I read what I wanna read and not what other people tell me!"Very smart! Didn't school make you read some things?"
Not all of those were worth it."
I sure had to read them in order to pass the tests. Some of them I liked for instance Jane Eyre. Did you have to read that one? I also had to read Romeo and Juliet.
~☆~Autumn♥♥☔ wrote: "Jeffrey wrote: "~☆~Autumn♥♥☔ wrote: "Jeffrey wrote: "I read what I wanna read and not what other people tell me!"Very smart! Didn't school make you read some things?"
Not all of those were worth..."
Romeo and Juliet yes and I liked it. I didn't get assigned Jane Eyre though.
Horacio wrote: "As usual this kind of lists are ridiculously anglo and english language centered.... gringos think the world was created like 200 years ago but always forget that humanity has been writing for like..."
I know! Dream of the Red Lotus alone blows the vast majority of required reading lists for ABRHS out of the water!
Related News
As you might expect, we are book people here at Goodreads World Headquarters—rather intense book people, actually. And when the holidays roll...
Anyone can add books to this list.










