[karajorma]

I agree with you to a point but I do take exception to people who wouldn't put LOTR on a top 100 list claiming it had less literary significance/merit than the books that did make it.

Besides there are quite a few books that made both lists

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]The best books in history are the ones I've enjoyed the most.

For me anyway.
[/color]

[an0n]

I've read nothing on that BBC list.....except half of Return of the King.

[aldo_14]

1984, that's about it.

I'm not a fan of 'serious' books, though - more of an 'airport paperback' person (i.e. entertaining stories, yet with no major social or literary merit)

[Martinus]

Originally posted by an0n
I've read nothing on that BBC list.....except half of Return of the King.

[color=66ff00]Not your bag?
[/color]

[kode]

Originally posted by karajorma
I agree with you to a point but I do take exception to people who wouldn't put LOTR on a top 100 list claiming it had less literary significance/merit than the books that did make it.  

oh? so what made it so effin great, then? I'm dying to know.

[Flipside]

It was the first revival of 16th Century Folklore writing, it was the re-introduction of several major factors of British Folklore back into the public eye. There have been books written that are bigger and, possibly, better written, but LOTR was the pacemaker for modern Fantasy writing.

[Aspa]

Anyone read anything by China Mieville?

[phreak]

i've read a few on the first list, but i'm voting "Zero" due to the fact
a) They sucked
b) I was forced to read them for school assignments

Chinua Achebe, Nigeria, (b. 1930), Things Fall Apart
Charles Dickens, England, (1812-1870), Great Expectations
Mark Twain, United States, (1835-1910), The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

I've read none on the other list

[adwight]

Best book?  Ender's Game, by far.

[Flipside]

What is it about whenever you get experts to vote on their favourite of anything, they almost always pick stuff made over 50 years ago, be it wine, books, art even music in a lot of cases?

[Grey Wolf]

Here's what I've read off of the BBC list:
The Lord of the Rings, JRR Tolkien
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, JK Rowling
To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, CS Lewis
Rebecca, Daphne du Maurier (the first few chapters in English class, rather horrible)
Great Expectations, Charles Dickens
Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone, JK Rowling
Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets, JK Rowling
Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban, JK Rowling
The Hobbit, JRR Tolkien
Treasure Island, Robert Louis Stevenson
Dune, Frank Herbert
The Count Of Monte Cristo, Alexandre Dumas
Animal Farm, George Orwell
A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens
Of Mice And Men, John Steinbeck
The Colour Of Magic, Terry Pratchett

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Flipside
What is it about whenever you get experts to vote on their favourite of anything, they almost always pick stuff made over 50 years ago, be it wine, books, art even music in a lot of cases?

Cause they think it makes them look more intelligent when it actually just makes them pretentious.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by karajorma


Cause they think it makes them look more intelligent when it actually just makes them pretentious.

Partly. But more to the point, it's about literary dissemination. The people compiling these list are probably literary majors. For the most part, they're taught by their  professors and teachers, based on the books that they liked. There's a long cycle for a book to be  read and studied by enough people to take its place among literary classics.

[Stunaep]

And also because they are the books that thought up something new that has been copied, and taken as inspiration for centuries. Stuff like that endures you know. I mean, LOTR for example, it has been copied endlessly, and it itself took a lot from Beowulf, and Wagner's Ring of the Nibelungs, etc. Anyone who sais Crime and Punishment, for example, is pretentious, either hasn't actually read it, or hasn't got the attention span to actually think about it. Or take Faust for example. He was a character so well fleshed, so human, so much of something that hadn't been done so well and so thoroughly before, that it has inspired hundreds of writers after Goethe. Hell, it's one of the four Male Character Archetypes (the others being Hamlet, Don Quixote, and Don Juan). Take Londo of B5, for example. There's no denying that he was heavily influenced by Faust.

You may as well ask, why Aristotle's equations are still used in geometry.

[karajorma]

My answer was for those who ONLY include the old books. If they're willing to choose some more modern books too then it is as you say merely choosing a lot of classics.

BW while I agree with you up to a point anyone who claims to be a literary expert yet hasn't the grace to appreciate something he wasn't spoon fed by his mentor really doesn't have any right to the title.

A real literary expert is capable of making his own decisions not simply parrotting those of whoever taught him.

This survey was only one of 54 authors so it would only take 5 to 10 reccomendations for a book to have made it onto the list (maybe even less).  If you can't find 5 people out of a so-called group of experts to read some modern classics then they really aren't doing much to stay up to date in their chosen field.

[an0n]

Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]Not your bag?
[/color]

It was like a million pages of utter crap.

"They fight. They ride. Someone goes unconcious. They wake up. Something bad happens. They fight. They ride. Someone goe......."

I like stories with actual characters in them, not cold, emotionless stereotypes who only ever talk about battle or food.

[Stunaep]

Originally posted by karajorma
My answer was for those who ONLY include the old books. If they're willing to choose some more modern books too then it is as you say merely choosing a lot of classics.
 

Well, this list has got plenty of modern books, no?

Paul Celan, Romania/France, (1920-1970), Poems.
Ralph Ellison, United States, (1914-1994), Invisible Man
Gunter Grass, Germany, (b.1927), The Tin Drum
Ernest Hemingway, United States, (1899-1961), The Old Man and the Sea
Yasunari Kawabata, Japan, (1899-1972), The Sound of the Mountain
Astrid Lindgren, Sweden, (1907-2002), Pippi Longstocking
Vladimir Nabokov, Russia/United States, (1899-1977), Lolita

just to name a few.

And given that there is roughly 3000 years of recorded writings of literary quality to speak of, the number of books from the 20th century to make it into a top 100 influential books list is.... about 4. And this particular list has got a great deal more than that.

I'm being nitpicky, I know, but I'm in a mood for arguing

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by karajorma

BW while I agree with you up to a point anyone who claims to be a literary expert yet hasn't the grace to appreciate something he wasn't spoon fed by his mentor really doesn't have any right to the title.

A real literary expert is capable of making his own decisions not simply parrotting those of whoever taught him.

Agreed. It's hardly a hard and fast rule. It's just one of the reasons most books take awhile to be recognized as true classics - the people who make those distinctions have to be exposed to them at some point after all.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Stunaep
Well, this list has got plenty of modern books, no?

That would be a good arguement if I was on about the list. But I was mainly refering to Flipside's comment about experts always choosing old things.

Besides I'd be willing to bet that the number of books published in the 20th century is far higher than the number in any other 2 centuries you care to choose.

With that kind of productivity you'd expect more than a handful of books to make it.

Compare the number that are from the 20th century with those from the 19th.  That's rather odd isn't it. More books written in the 20th century but somehow the 19th was better.

Besides I don't consider books 100 years old to be modern. Try 20-30 years old.