Comments on: 100 greatest novels

By: James A Farrell

James A Farrell — Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:32:02 +0000

That list is a sham, a mockery. Why are there no modern novels? How is Philip Roth’s Portnoy’s complaint better than his book ‘ American Pastoral? ‘
It’s not.
Well will people grow up? Evolve?
Crusty old men with white beards perched on their fucking ridiculous laurels, immutable, bored and boring. Burn the list.

By: Kane Miller

Kane Miller — Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:03:52 +0000

I was apalled by that list. I can’t understand why 1984 wasn’t at the very leaste ranked five. 1984 is the most far ahead of its time books ever written, well Brave New World comes close but it doesn’t nearly hit the nerve 1984 hits. The Catcher in the Rye is a masterpiece yet was in the sixties some where. That is BS. I also believe Of Mice and Men and johnny got his gun should’ve been on the list. I piss on that list.

By: Peter Sean Bradley

Peter Sean Bradley — Wed, 26 Jun 2002 06:26:59 +0000

Hah. You beat me. I was in at 10. But I’m reading Joyce’s Ulysses only because its in the pole position on this list.

On the other hand, one of the “books” I did read was Dos Passos’ USA, which really should count for three books.

On the other hand, I rule on the Reader’s List thanks to my extended study of the ouvre of Robert Heinlein. But Battlefield Earth is in third position? Not in this universe.

By: Robert Bauer

Robert Bauer — Wed, 26 Jun 2002 06:26:32 +0000

If it makes you feel better, I’ve only read seven of the Board’s list and twelve of the Readers’ list. Of course, if I’d read all the books I was assigned to read, it would be more like fifteen off the Board’s list, but, c’est la vie…