Greatest Novel of All-Time

[tonysoprano]

My vote would be "Lonesome Dove"

 

[buckweaver]

One advantage of beginning early is seeing your reactions change.

When I was 15, Heathcliff was desperately romantic. At 45? What a shmuck!

This is, indeed, a fascinating feeling. I'm starting to get old enough where I can now read a book I first read 15 or 20 years ago. And yes, reactions do change. In some cases, quite a bit.

But it's thrilling when your initial feelings hold up.

 

[Bubbler]

Why I never became a "reader" is one of the big mysteries of my life. My father had a personal library that filled up an entire wall, my mother probably reads three books a week and my wife is constantly reading books. I've been surrounded my entire life by people who truly appreciate reading and it just never rubbed off on me. I read a lot and deal with words in some form or fashion constantly, but rarely do I have the desire to read an entire book. For whatever reason, my mind doesn't work well in "book mode."

I'm much the same way, at least in terms of how I don't read novels.

I read a ton, but it's almost exclusively non-fiction history stuff. fork, I can endlessly fascinate myself just reading random ship on Wikipedia.

I've never had any interest whatsoever in fiction, which is bizarre because I have a major appreciation for it in another arts, especially film.

 

[outofplace]

I'm always disappointed when Babbitt isn't on these lists. Also, I will challenge to a fist fight the next one who denigrates Steinbeck. In the end, I would vote for a F. Scott Fitzgerald novel ...

I compensate for denigrating Steinbeck by never having finished Catcher in the Rye, despite three or four attempts. Feel free to consider me an outlier.

You aren't the only one. I just don't like Catcher in the Rye at all.

A few people mentioned that Faulkner should be on the list, but nobody suggested a particular novel of his. I read a few of them all in one summer for a clash (huge mistake on my part. Faulkner is not something to read when you have to go quickly), and I'm not sure which I'd put up there.

Regarding Moby deck, I get that there was some point to all the other crap in the book, but Melville needed a darn editor in the worst way. I absolutely love some parts of it, but others had me wanting to invent a time machine just to go back and kick his ash.

 

[Dash 7]

I suppose this is as good a place as any for my first post.

Heretic alert, but many of the clashics don't quite do it for me. I'm sure it has something to do with my age (24), but most of my favorite novels are fairly recent. I would say my favorite novel is Life of Pi, by Yann Martel. Which is interesting, because it is an inherently religious work of art, and I am very much not religious.

I find myself gravitating towards non-fiction more often recently. Either sports writing or learning about science and nature.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I suppose this is as good a place as any for my first post.

Heretic alert, but many of the clashics don't quite do it for me. I'm sure it has something to do with my age (24), but most of my favorite novels are fairly recent. I would say my favorite novel is Life of Pi, by Yann Martel. Which is interesting, because it is an inherently religious work of art, and I am very much not religious.

I find myself gravitating towards non-fiction more often recently. Either sports writing or learning about science and nature.

I like modern fiction, too, but what I love about the clashics is this reminder that our human experiences - emotions, relationships, challenges - did not begin yesterday. That we share so much with our ancestors, even the ancients. It can be quite humbling.

 

[Buck]

Who would win a fight between Wonder Woman and Beta Ray Bill?

 

[Azrael]

Postwar American 'best' still has to be 'Lolita.' Maybe.

Here's a question that's easier/harder:

What's the 'best' American novel of the 21st century? (NB: neither 'Infinite Jest', '96, nor 'Underworld', '97, are eligible. Depending how you count centuries, neither is 'Kavalier and Clay', '00.)

 

[Double Down]

Best novel since 2000 contenders, in order of preference:

The Corrections
Cloud Atlas
The Brief Wonderous Life of Oscar Wao
Netherland
Middlesex
Olive Kitteridge
Attonement
The Road
The Yiddish Policeman's Union
On Beauty
The Namesake

 

[waterytart]

I have read or hope to read most of those. I haven't and won't read The Road, because of an aversion to dystopian literature. I'm curious if you think that quirk would disqualify Cloud Atlas for me, DD.

 

[Azrael]

I'll add Little Children to the list.

 

[Double Down]

That's interesting, Az. I liked Little Children a great deal and think it's Perrotta's best work. (The final scene/lines are perfect.) I think it's a beautiful slice of suburban angst and melancholy -- and I think you could certainly make the case that's an important aspect of modern American life to ponder -- but your might be the first time I've seen someone argue it deserves a seat at the table among the great works of the decade.

I don't necessarily disagree, I just haven't given it proper consideration in that context.

A lot of people would demand Empire Falls make this short list, but I felt like that book (for all it's grandiose ambition) left me a little unsatisfied. Both Nobody's Fool and Staight Man were better, IMO.

Tart, Cloud Atlas is unlike any fiction written in the last 50 years. Mitchell has an incredible mind. It's not really dystopian literature, so to speak. It's more of a creative writing experiment in mimicry that somehow blows your mind when it's over. The dystopian section was actually my favorite, and it doesn't occur until the middle section of the book.

A Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet might actually be a better book, if you want to give Mitchell a chance. But the experimental nature of Cloud Atlas is pretty amazing.