The Republic of Heaven

I've recently been made aware of TIME Magazine's "All-Time 100 Novels: The Complete List."

Does anybody have any thoughts on it? My first thought is that it's pretty funny they begin their "complete list" in 1923, which is when the magazine was first published.

I think most lists of this kind are a bit silly but this one is strangely friendlier than others I've seen, but I'd like to know the rationale behind some of these choices.

How many have you read/liked? Are there any selections that surprise? Which would you put them on your "all-time" list?

I don't know most of the books on the list, but some ones i do know I'd rather weren't there. Lolita starts off great but then the second half is a total let down and really boring. I, along with everyone in my English class including the teacher, hated To Kill A Mocking Bird so I know there's pleanty of people who wouldn't have that on their list. It's nice to see the Lord of the Rings on there. And everything else I've read I probably wouldn't mind on my list. But personally any list which excludes Whinnie the Pooh is crap.

Atonement?! I liked it a lot, but they've got to be kidding. Where is Pride & Prejudice?!

Edit: Oh, I suppose that's because they started in 1923. Perhaps that's why it seems more accessible? More modern literary fare than the typical "best ever" list?

On a positive note, I'm pleased to see Ubik by Philip K. Dick made the cut. It's definitely one of the best, consistently underrated books of all time by one of the best, consistently underrated authors of all time.

The list only focuses on novels published in and after 1923, Matt.

I haven't met anyone who hated To Kill A Mockingbird, let alone a whole class full of people. They all really hated it? It would certainly make my modern English language novels list if I ever made one, which I wouldn't.

The Lord of the Rings is one that surprises me along with The Chronicles of Narnia and some others, even Atonement. I wonder if they put more emphasis on the zeitgeist and subsequent cultural significance represented by the books than their literary merit.

I've heard of most of these books but have only read just under 1/5 of them, and only have interest in reading about ten more. I wish they had pushed the date back to 1920 so they could include The Age of Innocence. What's the point of a list starting at the turn of the century without Edith Wharton?

I've read precisely two of those, despite the fact that I spent pretty much my entire childhood and teenage years with my nose stuck in a book.

*shrug*

I, along with everyone in my English class including the teacher, hated To Kill A Mocking Bird so I know there's pleanty of people who wouldn't have that on their list

Macclesfield in being massively racist shocker... :p

We weren't racist, we all just found it really boring and pointless. It was funny listening to our teacher interupt her reading aloud moments to moan about something. And it's not like she was a bad teacher who didn't know what she was talking about, she was a fantatic teacher who even won some national (or north west, i don't know) teaching award. But forwhatever reason, To Kill a Mockingbird just doesn't win over Macclesfieldians...

It seems a pretty varying list--it doesn't just stick to thinking one style is particularly better than anything else. What sort of criteria did they use to judge a book?

I think the list does need a more specific title than "All-Time" Best 100 if it only starts in 1923. They miss out on a lot of good novels by cutting off at that date.

What sort of criteria did they use to judge a book?

That's what I was trying to figure out but maybe I guessed near before; they could be giving precedence to cultural touchstones since that is what Time is all about.

I think the list does need a more specific title than "All-Time" Best 100 if it only starts in 1923. They miss out on a lot of good novels by cutting off at that date.

I assume they wanted to focus on the 20th century novel and the movements that followed from it. I think that's fair; the tug between the modernists and postmodernists is interesting enough to warrant its own "All-Time" list. But to skip the first 20 years and exclude the seminal works of writers like Henry James and James Joyce just so the list could coincide with Time's original publication date is pretty silly. Oh well, it is their list, and they do some silly things sometimes...like the year they voted "You" the "Person of the Year."

I once almost convinced a friend that I had won Time's person of the Year...which of course, I actually had, kind of.