Way back in 1998, the Modern Library polled their board of review (which included such luminaries as Gore Vidal and Edmund Morris) to make a list of the 100 best novels written in the English language in the 20th. century. (I don't have space to show the whole list; you can link to it here). As an avid reader, I scanned the list with interest and was a bit chagrinned to discover that I had only read a measly 19 of them, not to mention the fact that lot of them were completely unknown to me. The list stuck in my mind for a long time, and back in 2014 I decided to work my way through it; just days ago I finished the 81 novels I hadn't read. (Being in lockdown sped up the process). It's been quite the literary experience.
Before I get into the novels specifically, let's look the list overall: sadly, but not surprisingly, it's stacked with white men. There are only 5 authors of color, only 9 novels written by women (Edith Wharton has 2), and no women of color. The lack of diversity leads to some omissions that are really surprising: Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird is still taught in schools and is considered an American classic, but it's not on the list. Neither is Erica Jong's hilarious Fear of Flying, Toni Morrison's Beloved, or Alice Walker's The Color Purple, the last two of which won Pulitzer Prizes.
Yet another bias is shown in that most of the novels are written by British authors, and, putting it bluntly, "a story about the lives and loves of upperclass English white people" could summarize a lot of the novels on the list. Another plot that arises often is a story about a white person traveling through an"exotic" and "mysterious" foreign country. I imagine this was something that interested a lot of readers in England throughout the early to mid 20th century, as it pops up in novels as diverse as Evelyn Waugh's satirical Scoop and Joseph Conrad's bleak look at colonialism, Heart of Darkness. (Conrad, it should, be mentioned, has 4 novels on the list, the most of any author).
There's also a downplaying of the importance of genre novels, with only a handful of Science Fiction novels, one mystery novel, and no horror, fantasy, or children's ones (although Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children has fantasy elements). There's no Lord of the Rings, or I Robot, even though they were huge in their respective genres. And don't forget that the highly influential The Wizard of Oz was written in 1900, and it should be on the list in my opinion. So should something by Agatha Christie, sure she may have written formulaic mysteries, but she obviously had a lot of importance and popularity in that field, and deserves to have one novel on the list. (And Then There Were None is perhaps her most influential novel, and one that's breaks the pattern of her other mysteries, so I think that should be the one).
Another bias is that most of the novels were published before 1950, with none from the 1990's chosen. A point could be made that this reflects the fact that the ones on the list have withstood the test of time, but it also means that well regarded novels from the 90's, like say Trainspotting by Irvine Welsh or the first Harry Potter book, were overlooked.
Despite all of those criticisms, I still thought it was a good thing to release the list, and I'm glad I read all the novels, even if I didn't care for them all. (And, I will freely admit, I did often use wikipedia and some other online sources to help my understanding of some of them). Here, then are my brief takes on the top ten novels, complete with a simple yes or no question at the end: DO I THINK THAT IT DESERVES TO BE ON THE LIST? I'll post my feelings about the next novels on the list soon.
1. Ulysses, James Joyce, 1922. I read this novel in a college class decades ago, and sometimes we would spend half an hour dissecting the meanings and references of a single page. Yes, this novel is famously dense and difficult, as it shifts tones and picks up stream of consciousness thinking; it's also often breathtaking and stunningly beautiful. Leopold Bloom takes a walk around Dublin Ireland, and finds, well, that's the tricky part. Controversial and banned in many places after its publication, it still exudes a fascination worth trying. DO I THINK IT DESERVES TO BE ON THE LIST? Yes, absolutely.
2. The Great Gatsby, F Scott Fitzgerald, 1925. Fitzgerald's classic novel of lust and jealousy in the jazz age feels as evergreen as Ulysses. It's still often taught in high school literature classes, and the reason is obvious: the themes of class and lost love still ring true. DO I THINK THAT IT DESERVES TO BE ON THE LIST? Yes.
3. A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, James Joyce, 1916. Joyce's first novel is by far his most accessible. Written in the third person combined with free indirect speech, it deals with the young life of Joyce's literary stand in, Stephen Dedalus. The story mainly deals with Stephen's internal battle between his human desires and his Catholic upbringing. It's fascinating reading as the young man veers between visiting prostitutes and considering joining the priesthood. Anyone interested in but intimidated by Joyce's novels should start here. DO I THINK THAT IT DESERVES TO BE ON THE LIST? Yes.
4. Lolita, Vladamir Nabakov, 1955. Nabakov's groundbreaking, controversial story, told in the first person by self loathing pedophile Humbert Humbert, is at turns both funny, and disturbing. It still stands as one of the great first person novels in which the narrator has a loathsome point of view. DO I THINK THAT IT DESERVES TO BE ON THE LIST ? Yes, but it's obviously not for everyone.
5. Brave New World, Aldous Huxley, 1932. The first Science Fiction novel to make the list, this dystopian story shows Huxley cynically foreseeing the future as a place where people will be forced to lead government prescribed lives based on genetic conditioning. It's often compared to George Orwell's 1984, and personally I think that Huxley's novel falls short of Orwell's masterpiece. But taken on its own merits, it's an interesting early example of futuristic Science Fiction. DO I THINK THAT IT NOVEL DESERVES TO BE ON THE LIST? Yes, but lower down on it.
6. The Sound and the Fury, William Faulkner, 1929. A famously difficult and confounding read, Faulkner employed stream of consciousness (like Joyce) and non linear storytelling to tell the story of one Southern family from different points of view. I must admit that I needed wikipedia to help me sort it out, but once you get caught up in its rhythms, it contains many worthy passages. DO I THINK THAT IT DESERVES TO BE ON THE LIST? Yes, but perhaps not in the top ten.
7. Catch 22, Joseph Heller, 1961. The title of Heller's satirical WWII novel has become a shorthand expression for anything that seems self defeating (like, how killing your enemies enrages their families, which winds up making more enemies that must be killed). Heller based the story on his own experiences as a bomber during the war, and he often tells the story from different view points out of sequence. The tone of the story changes towards the end, when Heller really depicts the horror of war realistically. Not always an easy read, but well worth it. DO I THINK THAT IT DESERVES TO BE ON THE LIST? Yes.
8. Darkness at Noon, Arthur Koestler, 1940. A powerful takedown of Russian Communism, Koestler based this on his own membership and disillusionment with the party in the 1930's. The Russian main character is imprisoned on trumped up charges during a brutal party purge. The constant sense of doom (and the torture scenes) are not always easy to take, but this is an excellent observation of not just Communism but dictatorships in general. DO I THINK THAT IT DESERVES TO BE ON THE LIST? Yes.
9. Sons and Lovers, DH Laurence, 1913. A woman of refinement enters into a passionate marriage with a miner, but then finds herself unable to adapt to his poor lifestyle. Instead she funnels her passion into her two sons, but she winds up overbearing them. As the synopsis shows, there is a definite classist attitude in this story which I didn't like. It's also often staid and dull; although its sexual content was considered quite racy by the standards of the time, it's pretty tame by today's standards. DO I THINK THAT IT DESERVES TO BE ON THE LIST? This is probably the first novel that I would argue doesn't need to be on the list. But I imagine it was influential in its day.
10. The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck, 1939. Steinbeck's legendary tale of "Oakies" trying to survive during the great depression is one of my personal favorite all time books. From the heart breaking moments of hard work and desperation to Tom Joad's famously uplifting ending speech, this is just about perfect. DO I THINK THAT IT DESERVES TO BE ON THE LIST? Yes, in fact I wish it were higher. (I also think that Steinbeck's other masterpiece, Of Mice and Men, should be on the list too).
No comments:
Post a Comment