Comments on: The Hundred Best Novels

By: Isegoria

Isegoria — Mon, 02 Dec 2013 14:27:04 +0000

I suppose I should clarify. My point wasn't that all the novels on the list are bad novels, or even that all the genre novels on the list are bad novels — just that so many bad, genre novels made the list. Castle of Otranto and Frankenstein, for instance, are both bad, but with a kernel of something fascinating, which made them influential. Dracula, on the other hand, is a good genre novel, in the same genre, that's not on the list. And The Three Musketeers is an excellent genre novel, in another genre, but on the list.

By: Faze

Faze — Sat, 30 Nov 2013 22:43:18 +0000

Bruce is right about the good stuff that suited its period taste but doesn’t suit ours. Doesn’t mean it’s “bad”. But out of time. I’m shocked by how many of these I’ve actually read. Roderick Random, Tom Jones, La Pere Goirot, Rasselas, and almost every other one you may have heard of is pretty good (get Don Quixote in the most modern translation available, however). Frankenstein, Last of the Mohicans, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, among the better-known titles, can be skipped. As I read down this list, fondly recalled Three Musketeerrs, etc., I find that the title is most warmly remember is Barchester Towers. There is not a whiff of the antique about this quiet tale of contesting country churchmen.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Sat, 30 Nov 2013 16:45:26 +0000

How can you tell bad, influential genre fiction from good stuff that suited its period taste and doesn’t suit ours? Wild Irish girls and black but comely girls interest me, though I believe these books are chick lit, which I don’t have the plumbing to enjoy.

I’d recommend Westward Ho. Not chick lit.

By: Ross

Ross — Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:16:14 +0000

Well, I guess we finally know who is John Galt.