Customer Reviews

The Novel 100: A Ranking of the Greatest Novels of All Time

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Mr. Burt has taken a stab at the thankless, controversial, and questionable task of ranking the world's greatest 100 novels in numerical sequence, and justifying his decisions in about five pages per novel. (There is also a second, unelaborated list of 100 "honorable mention" novels.)

I would say that, all things considered, he has done quite well. He is strongest on summarizing the novels in such a way that we are eager to read (or reread) them, and in placing them in their historical and literary-historical context. He doesn't do quite so much with style. This is perhaps understandable, given not only his space limitations, but also the fact that many of the works were not written in English.

He seems especially on target in choosing and ranking the works of Dostoyevsky, Faulkner, James, and Bellow. However, there are several works which I feel should have been in the "Top 100" rather than "Honorable mention:" Nabokov's Pale Fire, Lawrence's Sons and Lovers, Rushdie's Midnight's Children, Mann's Doctor Faustus, Calvino's Invisible Cities, and Dickens's David Copperfield. And the following should have at least been mentioned: Alexander Theroux's Darconville's Cat, David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest, John Crowley's Little, Big, and Georges Perec's Life: a User's Manual. This is not to suggest that Burt shies away from difficulty in making his recommendations: Finnegans Wake is rated in the top 50!

One quibble: it is stated on the book jacket that the author arrived at his decisions with the aid of other scholars. Those scholars, and the type of aid, should be specified. Or does this consist of the quotations with which he heads each of his summaries?

Recommended for neophyte and veteran novelophiles.

This is a daunting, not to say impossible, task: ranking the greatest novels of all time, but Burt has accounted himself well with his selections. Sure, there are favorites missing and novels that anyone might rank higher or lower, but in general it's hard to fault his choices. Each novel is covered succinctly, and Burt manages an enthusiasm for his subject that is contageous.

It's easy to quibble with the ranking aspect of the book, but readers will learn an enormous amount from Burt's efforts here.

Sure this list is a bit questionable. And sure there will always be personal favorites missing. Burt, himself, can't seem to resist the urge to include an alternate list of 100 more titles.

But Burt has created at least a starting point for those who want to read important novels. Too many best of novels lists are confined to the 20th century, and English language books. Also the ones that let popular tastes in (come on how much L.Ron Hubbard or Ayn Rand is really that good--check out the alternate list to the Modern Library's top 100 to see the poor choices people make), seem to ignore literary history. His summaries of each book are concise and accurate without being overly academic. Also some of decisions for the inclusion on the list seem to stem from historical significance (e.g. Gone with the Wind, Dracula, the Hound of the Baskervilles), as opposed to literary merit.

This is a necessary reference book for any lover of good literature. Buy it, and use it to help guide you through some of the books on the list. And remember that if you don't understand why a book is on the list, the flaw might be with your understanding of it, not the inclusion on the list (it took me three times to see why _Beloved_ is such a good book--the first time I read it I hated it).

This reference is a terrific resource for any serious reader who wants to read a short entry about many of the world's most famous novels.
Each entry includes biographical information on the author, details about the genre, an overview of the social and political era of the writer, and a brief synopsis of the novel.

I'm an avid reader but I was often disappointed with my book choices. I love writers like Hemingway, Steinbeck, Fitzgerald, and Zola. I wanted to find others like them. So far, the authors I have read from Daniel Burt's selections are superior writers as well as writers that I might not have found on my own. I recommend this book to anyone who is tired of reading books that have no lasting value.

I guess this attempt to numerically rank what the author considers the 100 best novels is as good as it possibly could be. It's just such a futile endevour I'm not even sure it's worth taking. However, the goal of this book is probably to try to get people to explore the classics, so I can't quibble with the rankings too much. Plus, a list like this is sure to generate debate and controversy, which is always entertaining.
Regardless, I do have a couple of issues with it:
1) The list includes too many English language novels, considering that it's supposed to span the entire history of world literature (plus a lot of English/American novels are ranked too high). You could easily take out stuff like Uncle Tom's Cabin and Gone with the Wind and include more non-English language authors, like Svevo, Calvino, Cortazar, Vargas Llosa, etc. Plus, does the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn really need to be in the top 20?
2) This is a touchy subject, but I think the author is a little too politically correct with some of the rankings, especially African American authors. Does anybody really think Invisible Man belongs in the top 25 greatest novels of ALL TIME? It's a good novel, but remember, this list is trying to take into account the entire history of the world literature. Ditto for Beloved. This also ties into the author's American-centric view point.
3) The author seems to have given up on the last 12 or so rankings, and just put in a bunch of popular but not exactly GREAT novels. There are plenty of great novels that have been excluded to make way for stuff like Gone with the Wind and the Three Musketeers. Like, say, Doctor Faustus.
4) The author unnecessarily excludes more "fantastic" literature because they don't have, to quote, a "synthesis between romance and realism, between a poetic, imaginative alternative to actuality and a more authentic representation." So that means no Gulliver's Travels, no Gargantua and Pantagruel, no Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Yet somehow Gravity's Rainbow and that giant pile of gobbledygook Finnegans Wake make it on here. Because they're so grounded in realism.
But whatever, it's still a good effort, despite it's flaws. The author just easily exposes himself as an American.

In response to: "Sure, there are favorites missing and novels that anyone might rank higher or lower, but in general it's hard to fault his choices."

I simply don't see how that is the case. The fact that Victor Hugo's 'Les Misérables', for example, is outranked by American high-school literature such as 'Jane Eyre', 'The Awakening, 'The Great Gatsby', 'The Catcher in the Rye' and 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' is somewhat unsettling, at least in my opinion.

Burt's top five picks are arguably solid, but the remaining 95 are just plain arbitrary.