I don't accept the results of many of these listings because they often have a recency bias that the compilers pretend pretentiously is not part of their mindset. This list is a good example, as is the recent compilation of the "best albums of all time" by Apple, which is enormously biased towards 21st century flashes in the pan at the expense of proven and respected 20th century artists.
At the very least, they waited until the 20th century was actually over before they made these kind of assessments. People today don't know how to wait...
Consider this: a 1924 New York Times list of the 100 best books of the 20th century would not have and could not have included Ulysses because that book was, for all intents and purposes, banned in the US until 1933. Because of that, imagine how incomplete said list would look just a few decades later.
I was on a national awards council in 2006-2007 and for that jury we would nominate books and then if one of us nominated it everyone had to read it. I nominated Savage Detectives. I got no takers. It wasn't included. I wonder if anyone who voted me down has second thoughts.
Don’t think this list means anything. Huge recency bias and have you noticed how few books were in translation? I seriously doubt 90 of the 100 best books of the 21st century were all published in the U.S. or U.K. Same thing with films. That’s just dumb. And asking a bunch of famous English-speaking authors to speak for the whole culture is a mistake, in my opinion.
That doesn't really bother me because of course an Anglophone culture is going to have a bias towards English novels. If this list was made by a French of Japanese magazine, it would have the same kind of language bias.
I think "best films of all time" tend to be more international because of the way the film awards circuit has functioned for so long. It's also a lot less time to translate a 90-180 minute movie than to translate 200-1,100 pages of prose.
I think I've mentioned this somewhere before, but when Mo Yan won the Nobel Prize, a lot of Chinese writers/academics said that much of the internation reputation of Mo Yan comes from the skill of his translator rather than Mo Yan's writing ability. Which is an interesting problem to consider!
Yes, it is, and I didn’t know that! But I suppose you’re right about the difference between the mediums, it makes sense. But given that most of the Western world speaks English nowadays, an “Anglophone” culture has become much more than just the native English speakers. Though, looking at the list again, it might be that as many as 20 books are in translation, coming from places as diverse as Denmark, Korea, and Spanish-speaking countries, which is quite nice. I’d have like to have seen many more, but I suppose this is as good as we could have expected. The biggest gripe I still have with it is the recency bias. How many of these books were released within the last 5 years? Many.
Wao! (Pun intended!) I am curious what made you hate The Brief Wondrous Life... so much. I haven't read the book in well over a decade, but apparently Junot Diaz is on substack now like all the other cancelled writers, and he's still writing *like that.* But even though poptimism ate his style and turned it into an excruciating shtick for everyone and anyone to pick up, it's still really cool when *he* does it, I think.
There's a lot to say about that novel! I really liked everything in the historical narrative and wish the whole novel would have been that. I found Wao's narrative mostly very cringe inducing. But I also don't like jokes and stories that rely on popculture references. It's one of those books that felt like it was continually winking at me, and that's one of the things I dislike most in books or movies.
I also remember the handling of Wao, in general, felt very odd. It's been several years since I read it so I can't remember entirely.
On the positive side in my nominations for the National Jury I did nominate The Road and everyone agreed. I wish I had never read that book. I think about it every day. It is the best book, but it is also the worst book. When I heard NORAD alert last night about Chinese and Russian planes near Alaska it was The Road I thought of immediately.
I don't accept the results of many of these listings because they often have a recency bias that the compilers pretend pretentiously is not part of their mindset. This list is a good example, as is the recent compilation of the "best albums of all time" by Apple, which is enormously biased towards 21st century flashes in the pan at the expense of proven and respected 20th century artists.
By its very definition, it's a recency bias! There have only been 23.5 years this century! Which is why I find it weird to even make such a list.
At the very least, they waited until the 20th century was actually over before they made these kind of assessments. People today don't know how to wait...
Well, I really do think it's essentially just high falootin clickbait.
They know this will get lots of online engagement, and that's the whole purpose.
Yes.
Consider this: a 1924 New York Times list of the 100 best books of the 20th century would not have and could not have included Ulysses because that book was, for all intents and purposes, banned in the US until 1933. Because of that, imagine how incomplete said list would look just a few decades later.
Absolutely
Then again...look what the world's libraries hold:
https://search.worldcat.org/lists/cccf6892-aab3-4283-90ea-a782ce386a21
This makes much more sense to me
I was on a national awards council in 2006-2007 and for that jury we would nominate books and then if one of us nominated it everyone had to read it. I nominated Savage Detectives. I got no takers. It wasn't included. I wonder if anyone who voted me down has second thoughts.
They should! That is one of my favorite books.
Only books of these I read, Lincoln in the Bardo and Wolf Hall I really enjoyed.
I seem to be alone in my dislike of Lincoln in the Bardo!
But Wolf Hall is so good.
Don’t think this list means anything. Huge recency bias and have you noticed how few books were in translation? I seriously doubt 90 of the 100 best books of the 21st century were all published in the U.S. or U.K. Same thing with films. That’s just dumb. And asking a bunch of famous English-speaking authors to speak for the whole culture is a mistake, in my opinion.
That doesn't really bother me because of course an Anglophone culture is going to have a bias towards English novels. If this list was made by a French of Japanese magazine, it would have the same kind of language bias.
I think "best films of all time" tend to be more international because of the way the film awards circuit has functioned for so long. It's also a lot less time to translate a 90-180 minute movie than to translate 200-1,100 pages of prose.
I think I've mentioned this somewhere before, but when Mo Yan won the Nobel Prize, a lot of Chinese writers/academics said that much of the internation reputation of Mo Yan comes from the skill of his translator rather than Mo Yan's writing ability. Which is an interesting problem to consider!
Yes, it is, and I didn’t know that! But I suppose you’re right about the difference between the mediums, it makes sense. But given that most of the Western world speaks English nowadays, an “Anglophone” culture has become much more than just the native English speakers. Though, looking at the list again, it might be that as many as 20 books are in translation, coming from places as diverse as Denmark, Korea, and Spanish-speaking countries, which is quite nice. I’d have like to have seen many more, but I suppose this is as good as we could have expected. The biggest gripe I still have with it is the recency bias. How many of these books were released within the last 5 years? Many.
I just don't understand why you'd bother making a list like this for a century that's barely begun.
May as well call it the best books of the decade.
But this generates more clicks!
Right! That’s mostly what it is, too: best books of the decade. We’re bound to see another list like this in a few years, I bet 😂
You might enjoy reading this re: men and 'problematic' fiction:
https://borywrites.substack.com/p/do-we-really-want-more-male-vulnerability
I'll take a look!
Wao! (Pun intended!) I am curious what made you hate The Brief Wondrous Life... so much. I haven't read the book in well over a decade, but apparently Junot Diaz is on substack now like all the other cancelled writers, and he's still writing *like that.* But even though poptimism ate his style and turned it into an excruciating shtick for everyone and anyone to pick up, it's still really cool when *he* does it, I think.
There's a lot to say about that novel! I really liked everything in the historical narrative and wish the whole novel would have been that. I found Wao's narrative mostly very cringe inducing. But I also don't like jokes and stories that rely on popculture references. It's one of those books that felt like it was continually winking at me, and that's one of the things I dislike most in books or movies.
I also remember the handling of Wao, in general, felt very odd. It's been several years since I read it so I can't remember entirely.
On the positive side in my nominations for the National Jury I did nominate The Road and everyone agreed. I wish I had never read that book. I think about it every day. It is the best book, but it is also the worst book. When I heard NORAD alert last night about Chinese and Russian planes near Alaska it was The Road I thought of immediately.