Stupid lists

[intertext]

So I stumbled over Time's list of the "All-time 100 novels" since 1923. Needless to say, I have some issues with their choices. For crying out loud Are You There God? It's Me Margaret Bleah!!! Too many Americans and not enough Anyone other than Brits. The only Canadian novel is The Blind Assassin? Not even Margaret Atwood's best, imho... On the other hand, I was pleasantly surprised to see Christina Stead's The Man Who Loved Children . Oh well; I don't suppose you could get two people to agree on even 10 great novels, let alone 100. (but Judy Blume... give me a break!)

Comments

[lilyfriend.livejournal.com]

I'm surprised? glad? to see Never Let Me Go - Ishiguro there. That's fairly new? People might argue he's got better works. It's the only one I've read, but of course Remains of the Day was fairly highly regarded, both in film and print. Either way, I agree with it being a great book. :)

[intertext.livejournal.com]

yes, I was quite pleased to see that, although puzzled because it _is_ such a recent book. I suppose I feel that something has to stand up to the test of time in some way to be ranked up there with some of the truly "great" books... but that's the trouble with all of these lists. There'll always be someone who wants one thing and not another. And I think I've read things that I thought "greater" than that... or that at least I would have liked to have seen included. _The Bone People_, for one... _The English Patient_? _The Stone Angel_? _Unless_?