The top 100 classics according to active members of "Catching up on Classics" group

[J_BlueFlower]

I modified my vote a little and added Dante: The Inferno. I honestly did not like it. Forced myself to read it. Gave it 2 stars. But still a classic, I guess.

Some surprises:
The Trial and Death of Socrates is the only Plato and only has a single vote.

Robinson Crusoe. Only a single vote.

Evgeny Onegin by Alexander Pushkin. Only a single vote.

As number 16 The Odyssey, but as far as I can see no The Illiad. I tried hard to limit myself to one book per author. Maybe I am not alone?

[J_BlueFlower]

Rora wrote: "I guess I thought the list was for classics that we liked. I only voted for classics I rated 5 or 4 stars."

I initially asked for what active group members think are the top 100 classics. I did not ask for like, love or even “have read”. I expected a discussion of “what is a classic? – please define”. Hasn’t happened yet....

We often look at other lists and criticize them. Could we do better? I think we already have.

If you feel like only voting for 4 and 5 star reads that is fine. It really boils down to “what is a classic?”.

Mark Twain said: “Classic' – a book which people praise and don't read.”

I suspect that some classics may become “classics of historical importance”, but largely unread because there are so many better books.

[Darren]

choosing just 100 though does mean you have to apply some criteria to your choosing

my 100 only has 4 or 5 star reads for me, although these are most definitely NOT just my 100 "favourite" classics

wrt "very-old-school" titles such as Inferno, Odyssey, Aeneid, Eugene Onegin etc there are so many editions that it can quite often make a big difference which translation/set of explanatory notes you read as to your enjoyment/appreciation

[Kathleen]

I see your point, J_BlueFlower, and thanks for clarifying.

"What is a classic" is a big question. Scholars and critics have lots of ideas that may be more broadly accepted than the ones we find on listchallenges and Goodreads, but they're still opinions. We can find those online at places like https://www.sjc.edu/academic-programs....

I'm just a reader. I don't know what's important, and I don't feel comfortable recommending a book, or saying it's a classic, unless I've read it. And if I've read a highly-touted book, like Dead Souls, let's say, and didn't like it at all, I don't feel comfortable saying, "Yeah, it's a classic, you should read it, but I hated it."

So my votes went for books that I've read that I think everybody should at least try. I guess that's my definition of a classic--a book I found valuable that I think everyone should try, in case they find value there too.

I'd love to hear what others think.

[Sam]

I agree that defining a classic is difficult. I tend to look at a classic as a book that is important to the understanding and appreciation of literature as a whole and a book that is commonly read and known those that are knowledgeable in literature. I would also divide classics into smaller categories, some time-based representing periods or ages, other by genre, other by movement or school of ideas or thought. Relating what I would determine the top 100 classics of literature to the criteria above as a reader of Western Literature, my top five would be The Bible, The Odyssey, Ovid's Metamorphoses, The Iliad, and The Aeneid, quickly followed by a representative play from both Sophocles and Euripides, Augustine's Confessions., Dante's Inferno, Beowulf, The Canterbury Tales, Hamlet, Le Morte D'Arthur, and Don Quixote. Since some of these weren't included on the list and what was differed from my definition, I stayed away from participating. But I agree a clear definition should be stated to discern between a classic and favorite read.

[Terry]

To me, and I admit that these are probably not the common definitions, a favorite book is one that touches me personally, and a classic book does that but also speaks to the human condition in a larger context beyond the personal and affects a much larger audience than just me, over time.

So there is an element of consensus required. There is also an element of having stood a test of time in this respect. What time period? 50 years? 100 years? Is there such a thing as a modern classic? I don’t have an answer to this because for me, I tend to revert back to the first part of my definition of a classic. (Hence the comma I put in front of the phrase “over time.”)

However, personally, if a book does not affect me, I can recognize that it is a classic to others, but it will never be a classic to me, because, by my definition, having that personal connection is foundational.

I think my definition could exclude literary achievements that don’t stir my imagination, some “classic” non-fiction (although I have read non-fiction that is stirring), and some genre leaders that just don’t appeal to me. I admit this possibility and I’m fine with that because I don’t think there is “one size fits all.”

[Brian E]

J_BlueFlower wrote: "No omnibus in the same way as in the group reads (short story collections are fine, but not complete works)..."

For clarification, what about trilogies or book series?

There are book series not normally published in one volume except in Kindle form such as:
or .
While I have them listed that way in my "favorites" file, I presumed those two series would be considered "omnibus" and the individual books would have to be individually nominated.

But a closer question is with trilogies that are often and even mainly published in one volume. I have bought one volume books such as:
and

I note that someone added the first volume of the first book in that series, The Wreath. I added the Kristin Lavransdatter trilogy edition. Should it really be added as 3 separate books?

[J_BlueFlower]

I try to stay as close to the group rules for “book” and “omnibus“. So far Kristin Lavransdatter has been ruled an omnibus. If you like to vote for all three books, it will cost three votes.

[J_BlueFlower]

Definitely some intriguing books on the list. Some I never heard about. Like for instance The Twelve Chairs.

[Darren]

ah The Twelve Chairs - 23,000 ratings, 4.40 average, a true classic of 20th century Russian literature, not to mention it's equally good sequel The Little Golden Calf (4.44 rating)
I wonder which discerning group member added it?
;o)

[Brian E]

J_BlueFlower wrote: "I try to stay as close to the group rules for “book” and “omnibus“. So far Kristin Lavransdatter has been ruled an omnibus. If you like to votes for all three books, it will cost three ..."

Makes sense. Thanks!

[Nente]

I've gone ahead and added the Iliad. It's less than a year since my last reread. Felt more personal and fatalistic this time around.

At the beginning of the list, when not that many people put their votes in yet, many worthy books may be found at the end as well as the start. I've been looking through it the other way round!

[J_BlueFlower]

Nente wrote: "I've gone ahead and added the Iliad. It's less than a year since my last reread. Felt more personal and fatalistic this time around.

At the beginning of the list, when not that many people put the..."

Here are some books that surprise me:
The Iliad at least it is at the list now. Only a single vote.

The Trial and Death of Socrates is the only Plato and only has a single vote (and no other Plato).

Robinson Crusoe. Only a single vote.

Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse. Only a single vote.

Memoirs of a Geisha at the very end of the list with only a single vote.

Meanwhile Evgeny Onegin by Alexander Pushkin has got its second vote and is now number 194.

[Darren]

there are quite a few of my 100 that I'm surprised nobody else has voted for ;o) :op :oD

but I'll just mention one (which appears in all three of Time's 100 list, the NPR 100 and the Modern Library 100) namely James Dickey's Deliverance

[Lynn, New School Classics]

Brian E wrote: "J_BlueFlower wrote: "No omnibus in the same way as in the group reads (short story collections are fine, but not complete works)..."

For clarification, what about trilogies or book series?

There..."


Yes, we tend to focus on single books for the Group Bookshelf. Often it is the first book in a series. Examples:

Anne of Green Gables by L.M. Montgomery

or

The Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett


Buddy Reads will often be the place that people can read further volumes in a series.

[ChrisP]

I joined the group since I voted on this:)
The The Illiad has another vote and Crime and Punishment is one of my favorite books.

I have a question about what makes something classic. Books like Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone and The Shining maybe I'm to old and don't want to admit they are classic. I know there are newer books on the list like The Secret History but that could have more literary value. No judgements I'm just wondering what other people think.

[J_BlueFlower]

ChrisP wrote: "I joined the group since I voted on this:)
...
I have a question about what makes something classic...."

Welcome!

I am going to avoid answering that one ;-) We are not really defining it as a group other than must be published (or written) before 2000. We vote about everything so opinions about definitions tend to average out. In practice it works well.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone and The Shining maybe I'm to old and don't want to admit they are classic. I know there are newer books on the list like The Secret History

I can see why you say so, but I would place Harry Potter at a higher "lasting classical value" than The Secret History. Alone the impact Harry Potter had on children starting to read books (again) was huge. At least here. Nobody don't know Harry Potter, but plenty of people never heard about The Secret History. The writing is pretty bad in both, though....

[Darren]

I like Kathleen's definition above in message#54:

"...a book I found valuable that I think everyone should try, in case they find value there too."

[ChrisP]

Thank You @J_BlueFlower and @Darren. I will remember try and remember that quote.