I've read about half of these and I largely agree with that portion of your list (can't speak to the rest, of course). I will diverge in a few places.
I can't stand Lolita, Catcher in the Rye, or The Great Gatsby. In the case of the latter two, I suppose I can see an argument that one should read them at some point (but not because they'r…
I've read about half of these and I largely agree with that portion of your list (can't speak to the rest, of course). I will diverge in a few places.
I can't stand Lolita, Catcher in the Rye, or The Great Gatsby. In the case of the latter two, I suppose I can see an argument that one should read them at some point (but not because they're good books). I don't think anyone should read Lolita. It's a book that does only one thing: It wallows in evil for the sake of wallowing in evil. I've heard a dozen arguments about why it has some hidden value, and none of those arguments make sense to me.
I'm glad to see Les Mis and The Count of Monte Cristo on your list, though! Hugo and Dumas are two of my all-time favorite authors.
I would also argue that all three of Rand's novels (We the Living, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged) deserve spots on any top-100 list.
Of course, no two readers will ever have the exact same top-100 list, but I broadly appreciate yours.
Oh man, Lolita is BRILLIANT. So many quality books could be condemned for "being evil," but that sort of defeats the purpose of Art, doesn't it? What shocks me about Humbert Humbert in Lolita is how nuanced his inner world becomes, despite his horrible actions. Required reading, IMO.
My issue with Lolita isn't that it deals with evil ideas and behaviors from the perspective of a villain; plenty of good art does that. Breaking Bad comes to mind as a very well-done, semi-recent example; one major reason I say that Breaking Bad is good is because every element of the show—from the cinematography to the writers' choices about what to focus on to the interactions between various characters—makes it crystal clear that the show's overarching theme is: the far-reaching and inescapable consequences of evil behavior.
Lolita has no such theme. I would argue that the book has no theme at all (and that, therefore, it isn't even a novel—not in the true and full sense of the word). I have read it twice and I don't see even an attempt at a coherent, intentional theme. I agree with the critics who say that Nabokov's goal seems to have been nothing more than to shock and disgust readers because controversy sells. I agree with those critics not because they are numerous and well-known (I find that I disagree with most critics in most cases)—I agree with them because I can't honestly come to any other conclusion about Lolita after reading it as charitably as I possibly can.
The themes of Lolita are the self-justification of evil, evil's refusal to see itself for what it is and how evil blames its victims for its own crimes against them.
Martin Amis went as far as interpreting it as metaphor for Stalinist tyranny.
"I can't stand Lolita, Catcher in the Rye, or The Great Gatsby."
I think Great Gatsby's worth including; I found it the least unsatisfactory of Fitzgerald's novels, but in any case I'd plump for a selection of his best stories instead. Lolita wallows in evil for the sake of condemning evil, but I still wouldn't want to read it or urge others to read it, and would plump for Invitation to a Beheading instead, and definitely second Pale Fire on the list. (I have little tolerance for Nabokov, whom I gave up on after the tedious and typical fourth-wall breaking of The Real Life of Sebastian Knight; Pnin and King, Queen, Knave were okay.) I agree completely about Catcher in the Rye.
So glad you mentioned Rand. Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged belong in the list.
Happily I have read at least 30 plus, love the Russian authors, lots more other great books yo add. No comment on the other 25 “ not to reads “ , but agree with a lot of them other than the Margaret Atwood’ s best.
I've read about half of these and I largely agree with that portion of your list (can't speak to the rest, of course). I will diverge in a few places.
I can't stand Lolita, Catcher in the Rye, or The Great Gatsby. In the case of the latter two, I suppose I can see an argument that one should read them at some point (but not because they're good books). I don't think anyone should read Lolita. It's a book that does only one thing: It wallows in evil for the sake of wallowing in evil. I've heard a dozen arguments about why it has some hidden value, and none of those arguments make sense to me.
I'm glad to see Les Mis and The Count of Monte Cristo on your list, though! Hugo and Dumas are two of my all-time favorite authors.
I would also argue that all three of Rand's novels (We the Living, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged) deserve spots on any top-100 list.
Of course, no two readers will ever have the exact same top-100 list, but I broadly appreciate yours.
Oh man, Lolita is BRILLIANT. So many quality books could be condemned for "being evil," but that sort of defeats the purpose of Art, doesn't it? What shocks me about Humbert Humbert in Lolita is how nuanced his inner world becomes, despite his horrible actions. Required reading, IMO.
I did a piece on it: https://michaelmohr.substack.com/p/nabokovs-ego-lolita
My issue with Lolita isn't that it deals with evil ideas and behaviors from the perspective of a villain; plenty of good art does that. Breaking Bad comes to mind as a very well-done, semi-recent example; one major reason I say that Breaking Bad is good is because every element of the show—from the cinematography to the writers' choices about what to focus on to the interactions between various characters—makes it crystal clear that the show's overarching theme is: the far-reaching and inescapable consequences of evil behavior.
Lolita has no such theme. I would argue that the book has no theme at all (and that, therefore, it isn't even a novel—not in the true and full sense of the word). I have read it twice and I don't see even an attempt at a coherent, intentional theme. I agree with the critics who say that Nabokov's goal seems to have been nothing more than to shock and disgust readers because controversy sells. I agree with those critics not because they are numerous and well-known (I find that I disagree with most critics in most cases)—I agree with them because I can't honestly come to any other conclusion about Lolita after reading it as charitably as I possibly can.
The themes of Lolita are the self-justification of evil, evil's refusal to see itself for what it is and how evil blames its victims for its own crimes against them.
Martin Amis went as far as interpreting it as metaphor for Stalinist tyranny.
"I can't stand Lolita, Catcher in the Rye, or The Great Gatsby."
I think Great Gatsby's worth including; I found it the least unsatisfactory of Fitzgerald's novels, but in any case I'd plump for a selection of his best stories instead. Lolita wallows in evil for the sake of condemning evil, but I still wouldn't want to read it or urge others to read it, and would plump for Invitation to a Beheading instead, and definitely second Pale Fire on the list. (I have little tolerance for Nabokov, whom I gave up on after the tedious and typical fourth-wall breaking of The Real Life of Sebastian Knight; Pnin and King, Queen, Knave were okay.) I agree completely about Catcher in the Rye.
So glad you mentioned Rand. Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged belong in the list.
Happily I have read at least 30 plus, love the Russian authors, lots more other great books yo add. No comment on the other 25 “ not to reads “ , but agree with a lot of them other than the Margaret Atwood’ s best.