10.17.2005
Let the debate begin
Time magazine has published its list of the "All Time 100 Novels," which, rather than being a list of the best novels ever, is instead a list of the best English-language novels written since Time debuted in 1923 (All Time. Get it?).
The list was assembled by Time critics Richard Lacayo and Lev Grossman, and while it includes many, many obvious choices, the real debate will be about what was left off. As Lacayo writes in the accompanying story, "Lists like this one have two purposes. One is to instruct. The other of course is to enrage." That's the beauty of lists. They provoke debate. Should Money really be the book that represents Martin Amis' best work? Should Nabokov and Philip Roth each get two slots (Lolita and Pale Fire) while Flannery O'Connor and Norman Mailer get none? Is it too early to declare works by Jonathan Franzen and Zadie Smith as classics? Did anyone really read Infinite Jest?
One discussion point: Genre. Raymond Chandler makes the list; so do William Gibson and Phillip K. Dick. While writers in these genres today are relegated to the periphery when award time comes, these works and many others prove that tastes change and critical value can be a fickle thing. Peter Preston in the Guardian adds fuel to the current debate (spurred by Ian Rankin and P.D. James, as mentioned here last week), wondering how the work of Charles Dickens would be classified today. "The world is a giant bookshop -- and in that world, everything counts," he writes.
Getting back to the Time feature, it includes links to the original reviews of each selected book, which is a bit of a tease for those who aren't subscribers with the proper credentials to actually read them. Regardless, it's a credible if flawed list that will get people talking about literature, and that's a good thing.
The list was assembled by Time critics Richard Lacayo and Lev Grossman, and while it includes many, many obvious choices, the real debate will be about what was left off. As Lacayo writes in the accompanying story, "Lists like this one have two purposes. One is to instruct. The other of course is to enrage." That's the beauty of lists. They provoke debate. Should Money really be the book that represents Martin Amis' best work? Should Nabokov and Philip Roth each get two slots (Lolita and Pale Fire) while Flannery O'Connor and Norman Mailer get none? Is it too early to declare works by Jonathan Franzen and Zadie Smith as classics? Did anyone really read Infinite Jest?
One discussion point: Genre. Raymond Chandler makes the list; so do William Gibson and Phillip K. Dick. While writers in these genres today are relegated to the periphery when award time comes, these works and many others prove that tastes change and critical value can be a fickle thing. Peter Preston in the Guardian adds fuel to the current debate (spurred by Ian Rankin and P.D. James, as mentioned here last week), wondering how the work of Charles Dickens would be classified today. "The world is a giant bookshop -- and in that world, everything counts," he writes.
Getting back to the Time feature, it includes links to the original reviews of each selected book, which is a bit of a tease for those who aren't subscribers with the proper credentials to actually read them. Regardless, it's a credible if flawed list that will get people talking about literature, and that's a good thing.
