I'd agree that people need things to latch onto to appear smart. For example, was Einstein the greatest scientist ever, or is it an easy thing to talk about to look smart; if you were talking with a group of people and wanted to look intelligent would you talk about Einstein which they all know and can bob their heads to, or Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, who won't get you any street cred with the people around you.
This also happens in art, where people latch on to popular names so they can pop them out in conversations and every can nod and agree. Was Picasso really that great of an artist? or does he just have a name people recognize so people go with it. If Picasso's work was released on Instagram today, would anyone even look at it?
And back to the books, the same; these are are books people can safely say the names of and have everyone nod along and agree about how smart and cultured you are for knowing the correct names to say.
I really dislike these lists and those github repos of great software for xyz with 100s of links. what I want is 1-3 thing you really like and why.
OMG. I'm 77 years old, I finally read it three years ago and was astounded: it's incomprehensibly great — unimaginable that a human could have written it. Side-splittingly funny, deeply original, insightful and instructive. Written/published in 1871/1872; if it appeared today it would rocket to the top of the bestseller list.
I noticed that too. The "The story behind our list" link says:
> But all human life is here.
I think that's why I don't resonate with many of the titles. I do enjoy reading a vivid account of a person in a situation, but I prefer one that's not primarily people drama, and interacts with something large in an objective sort of way.
Books are weird to non-regular readers. I've thoroughly enjoyed almost every book I've read (except those assigned in school). Even reading books much longer than I'd ever expect to finish. I grew up on early sci-fi books from the public library, later reading Microserfs, Cryptonomicon, Diamond Age, Godel Escher Bach, Lord of the Rings. I also enjoy accounts of personalities in music, automotive, and math/science (based on my Youtube history). I can enjoy but feel cheated by stories which are just human drama with a sci-fi backdrop.
I often suspect lists like these to be more of a reflection of what books people have been told are great, than any quality of the book itself.
Ulysses being in the top three is a good example... I wonder how many of the people voting for it have read it.
I'd agree that people need things to latch onto to appear smart. For example, was Einstein the greatest scientist ever, or is it an easy thing to talk about to look smart; if you were talking with a group of people and wanted to look intelligent would you talk about Einstein which they all know and can bob their heads to, or Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, who won't get you any street cred with the people around you.
This also happens in art, where people latch on to popular names so they can pop them out in conversations and every can nod and agree. Was Picasso really that great of an artist? or does he just have a name people recognize so people go with it. If Picasso's work was released on Instagram today, would anyone even look at it?
And back to the books, the same; these are are books people can safely say the names of and have everyone nod along and agree about how smart and cultured you are for knowing the correct names to say.
I really dislike these lists and those github repos of great software for xyz with 100s of links. what I want is 1-3 thing you really like and why.
I didn't vote but I did read it. Full disclosure: I've tried "Finnegan's Wake" at least three times but never got beyond page 20 or so.
Interesting that english people like russian literature so much. There are more russian novels on the list than french and german combined.
No Catcher in the Rye? Bold.
Such lists are always a good starting point for debate and whataboutism.
None of Albert Camus' work is mentioned ?!
Now I really want to read Middlemarch.
OMG. I'm 77 years old, I finally read it three years ago and was astounded: it's incomprehensibly great — unimaginable that a human could have written it. Side-splittingly funny, deeply original, insightful and instructive. Written/published in 1871/1872; if it appeared today it would rocket to the top of the bestseller list.
Serious lack of SF in that list.
Yes. I believe Philip K. Dick is a more deserving Nobel Prize winner than Bob Dylan.
I beg to differ. Bob Dylan's poetry impacted me much more. He totally deserved the prize.
I noticed that too. The "The story behind our list" link says:
> But all human life is here.
I think that's why I don't resonate with many of the titles. I do enjoy reading a vivid account of a person in a situation, but I prefer one that's not primarily people drama, and interacts with something large in an objective sort of way.
Books are weird to non-regular readers. I've thoroughly enjoyed almost every book I've read (except those assigned in school). Even reading books much longer than I'd ever expect to finish. I grew up on early sci-fi books from the public library, later reading Microserfs, Cryptonomicon, Diamond Age, Godel Escher Bach, Lord of the Rings. I also enjoy accounts of personalities in music, automotive, and math/science (based on my Youtube history). I can enjoy but feel cheated by stories which are just human drama with a sci-fi backdrop.