The Mookse and the Gripes discussion
Book Chat
>
The Mookse group classics list
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
Roman Clodia
(new)
Oct 20, 2022 02:04PM
That's another reason why I'd like to see us being open to all kinds of texts - many of the existing lists focus exclusively on novels.
reply
|
flag
We'll need a clearly defined objective. Variables include:1. # of works
2. Type [novels, all fiction, both fiction and non-fiction, authors only, etc]
3. Theme [classics, under-the-radar gems, etc.]
4. Time range [last 100 years, 20-21st c., cuneiform to present]
5. Single list versus best of category lists [top x novels, top x poetry, regional favorites, "genre" (loosely defined), etc.]
If we're doing this from January 2023 to January 2024, or something similar, we have time to keep the ideas percolating. I think we have some good ideas so far.My current thoughts on your variables, subject to change and the consensus of the group:
1. 100 sounds look a good number.
2. I'd leave the type of text open. I'm with RC on this. The more variety we get, the more interesting it will be.
3. For theme, I'd keep it informal. I trust the collective wisdom of the group enough to think that any usual suspects nominated will sift down the rankings.
4. For time range, I'd vote for either the last 100 years or 20-21st centuries. Anything that keeps a Wagner libretto off the list.
5. I'm inclined to see what a single list of the top 100 looks like.
The more I think about this, the more interesting it might be if each of us have more nominations (8? 10?) so we get of a variety of texts and more diversity all around.
Clearly every group trying to organize something needs a Debra! This would be a mess and never get done if left to me.I vote for casual, open to all kinds of texts, but would like to see it include books from more than 100 years ago. And not just because I love The Iliad. I was thinking The 100 Best Books of All Time According to The Mookse and the Gripes.
It would be nice to exclude the usual suspects, how many lists must a book be on before it is deemed ineligible? For instance, I assume we would exclude Midnight’s Children, but what about Shame? I don’t see that on many lists.
Been trying to stay out of this discussion but it seems muddled - if it’s the Mookse best books of all time or the books Mookse thinks everyone should read how will the usual suspects be excluded. I feel like it might be better to dig out some lists of the usual suspects - eg the one that started this discussion from Penguin and some other ones which share the same “usual suspect” (and anglosphere) bias and explicitly agree to exclude all of those books.
The lists could be in the thread so hopefully people check them when nominating but if not any duplicates of those lists can be excluded at the compilation phrase.
That way it feels like we might get to an “alternative” and diverse list of classics - which I think is what was being aimed at.
How about "100 alternative classics for a new way of seeing the world."I would hope we wouldn't eliminate all anglocentric books. I agree that David Copperfield doesn't need our recommendation, and I would love a more nuanced and global list, but myself I would probably still nominate something like Angela Carter's Bloody Chamber, which only occasionally makes these lists.
Mod
Mod
GY is right that we should exclude those that appear on most lists of classics but, for nomination purposes, I think for everyone to be able to nominate books that they think are non-recognized classics, we need to allow Anglo-American books. As regards being sure the final list meets our "diversity targets", we have to figure out what those are and, I suspect, whatever mathematical tool is used to determine the 100 best, can ensure those targets are met. But what are our diversity targets? Most authors on classics lists are white, males but how do we identify whether authors were LBGTQ+? As to ethnicity or race, do we focus on language written in or continent the author was from? Do we rely on the nominator to provide diversity detail? Populaltion of continents seems not a way to go to set diversity, as how many of the works from Asia or Africa have been translated to a language most of us can read? It would seem that many of us will be restricted to books translated to English.
Maybe we just exclude those books on specified lists (including the beloved Iliad and the Odessey, Gilgamesh, etc) and go with 1900 to 2020 (a book needs at least a couple of years to age to be even a modern classic) and up to 13 nominations each.
If necessary to shorten the resulting list (i.e., if over 150), look at those with only one nomination and keep only those that are non-Anglo-American.
What if we reserve a certain number of spots on the final list for diverse geography and styles, but otherwise just see how it plays out naturally?For example, we could say at least 3 works from Asia, 3 works from Africa, and 3 works from South America / Caribbean must make the final list. Also at least 3 works of literary non-fiction, 3 works of poetry, and 3 works of drama. We might get more than the quota from each of those categories, but that would establish a minimum.
Mod
So, do we exclude the usual heavy hitters from the list (e.g. Ulysses)? Or do we allow these but reserve a certain number of spots for diverse writers/styles (which I think is David's recommendation)?Personally, I would like to see a top X list that balances the two where a book like Ulysses sits on the same shelf as books like Things Fall Apart or Seven Moons of Maali Almeida.
I can also think of a number of the usual top X works that check both boxes e.g. Picture of Dorian Gray.
Whatever we decide, the name of the list should reflect our objective e.g. Top 100 Books in the Last 100 Years or Top 100 Alternative Books (i.e. books that should be on every list, but are typically neglected)
Debra wrote: "Or do we allow these but reserve a certain number of spots for diverse writers/styles (which I think is David's recommendation)?"Yes, that's my recommendation. I wouldn't automatically exclude anything that otherwise fits our timeframe criteria. I agree Debra that our list will be more interesting if Ulysses sits on the same shelf as other works that are more diverse. The message I think we want to send is that a top-tier shelf of 100 books is much more diverse than the usual lists we see.
All that said, I think this is a good discussion with many different ideas. I'm keeping an open mind.
100 Books Every Contemporary Literary Awards Obsessed Reader Should Read Before They Die.
Lee wrote: "100 Books Every Contemporary Literary Awards Obsessed Reader Should Read Before They Die."Based on the ambitious reading habits I've seen from this group, the words "before they die" should read "before year's end". ;-)
It might be interesting to have it a requirement that our picks must be entirely missing from Harold Bloom's canon, or the Guardian's top 100, or Modern Library's Top 100 novels. It might be interesting also to put books on the final list in reverse order or popularity, with those that have just one person mentioning them as canon-worthy at the top. The hidden gem theory would mean that those with the least votes would be the most valued information we can learn from this.
It might be interesting to have it a requirement that our picks must be entirely missing from Harold Bloom's canon, or the Guardian's top 100, or Modern Library's Top 100 novels. It might be interesting also to put books on the final list in reverse order or popularity, with those that have just one person mentioning them as canon-worthy at the top. The hidden gem theory would mean that those with the least votes would be the most valued information we can learn from this.
It might be interesting to have it a requirement that our picks must be entirely missing from Harold Bloom's canon, or the Guardian's top 100, or Modern Library's Top 100 novels. It might be interesting also to put books on the final list in reverse order or popularity, with those that have just one person mentioning them as canon-worthy at the top. The hidden gem theory would mean that those with the least votes would be the most valued.
I think that should happen naturally with our usual aggregate comparison voting.
Lark wrote: "It might be interesting also to put books on the final list in reverse order or popularity, with those that have just one person mentioning them as canon-worthy at the top. The hidden gem theory would mean that those with the least votes would be the most valued."I totally love this idea!
Do we want to think about how to frame nominations? For example, are we asking people to nominate books they think are important or significant but which they disliked or found difficult to read? Versus books that we both loved reading and think deserve that classic status.
If the least popular books will be listed first, how would the voting work?
David wrote: "If the least popular books will be listed first, how would the voting work?"I'm feeling like as soon as voting enters into the picture we'll gravitate to the old standard, or at least to those books the most people have read. If I were to describe my ideal state of the "Mookse & Gripes Literary Canon" we would all individually, and in secret, come up with five books that have, in our view, been unfairly neglected, those books that changed our lives as much as any of the classic-classics, and we would post these without reading anyone else's contributions and then a list would be made from these, with no voting involved whatsoever. The list would include the name of the book, the author, the names of members who chose them, and the number of members who had these books on their list of 5.
I'm just describing my personal ideal state of affairs.
So many good ideas percolating in this discussion! Re: booklists of classics, I found a website that might be of interest. It’s a website called The Greatest Books.
This link is filtered to list books since 1900:
https://thegreatestbooks.org/the-grea...
From the website:
“How is this list generated?
This list is generated from 130 "best of" book lists from a variety of great sources. An algorithm is used to create a master list based on how many lists a particular book appears on. Some lists count more than others. I generally trust "best of all time" lists voted by authors and experts over user-generated lists. On the lists that are actually ranked, the book that is 1st counts a lot more than the book that's 100th. If you're interested in the details about how the rankings are generated and which lists are the most important(in my eyes) please check out the list details page.”
Using a master list like this might be useful in checking to see if a work of fiction is a “usual suspect.” It can also be consulted in searching nonfiction works as well. Just throwing this out there…
Oh, and you can download the fiction and nonfiction files as well…
That's a great resource, Janet.Tying this into a discussion on a different thread, it's telling that all the books from India on this list are originally in English.
I have a feeling it will be easy to steer clear of this.
David wrote: "Throwing out what also might be a bad idea.World population by continent is roughly:
Asia - 60%
Africa - 17%
Americas - 13%
Europe - 10%
It seems like a classics list should be reflective of thi..."
Of course, not forgetting Australia/NZ ...
I was going to mention that, Suzanne, but the stat I saw indicated that Oceania contains 0.56% of the world’s population. Which half of The Luminaries should we include? 😅
Why are we limiting them list to only books written since 1922? I love all the suggestions about diversity, but I missed why books written in the 19th century or earlier aren’t eligible? Is it just the number of books we’d have to consider?
It’s because none of the worlds current population lived in the 19th Century or earlier - so it loses out on the same basis as Australia and New Zealand
Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "It’s because none of the worlds current population lived in the 19th Century or earlier - so it loses out on the same basis as Australia and New Zealand"Haha!
WndyJW wrote: "Why are we limiting them list to only books written since 1922? I love all the suggestions about diversity, but I missed why books written in the 19th century or earlier aren’t eligible?"It was only a suggestion because so many of those prior books already appear on all the usual 'western canon' lists - doesn't mean we don't love them :)
Mod
I don’t have a book in mind when I ask about the 1922 cutoff, Inwas just wondering.
Are the lists exclusive? If Anna A. nominates a Krasznahorkai and Paul a Sebald and David a Taylor Swift lyric, should others also list the same if they agree so we get a consensus or does that free the rest of us to nominate a Hilary Mantel or Anita Brookner?
Mod
