The 100 greatest British novels...

[Nearly Sane]

As chosen by critics from outside the UK. Interesting selection which rates Viginia Woolf higher than I would and has a couple of books on it that I've never heard of.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/culture/article/20151204-the-100-greatest-british-novels

[ProfessorDavey]

As chosen by critics from outside the UK. Interesting selection which rates Viginia Woolf higher than I would and has a couple of books on it that I've never heard of.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/culture/article/20151204-the-100-greatest-british-novels

These things are always totally dependent on the peculiar biases of the reviewers, but in this case the list (particularly the top end) seems incredible narrow. So 9 out of the top 11 are from the 19thC, including 3 from Dickens and the only non 19thC books are both from Woolf. Are we really to belief that the most recently written book to be deemed good enough for the top 10 was written 98 years ago. Hmm.

It is a bit like those list of the greatest albums which are completely dominated by the 1960s and 70s to the exclusion of anything before or since.

[Sebastian Toe]

It is a bit like those list of the greatest albums which are completely dominated by the 1960s and 70s to the exclusion of anything before or since.

Those lists would be accurate though!

[Nearly Sane]

These things are always totally dependent on the peculiar biases of the reviewers, but in this case the list (particularly the top end) seems incredible narrow. So 9 out of the top 11 are from the 19thC, including 3 from Dickens and the only non 19thC books are both from Woolf. Are we really to belief that the most recently written book to be deemed good enough for the top 10 was written 98 years ago. Hmm.

It is a bit like those list of the greatest albums which are completely dominated by the 1960s and 70s to the exclusion of anything before or since.

Since they are as you note subjective, and can only be subjective, then the most recent book in the top ten being 98 years old is simply a fact.

I think the interesting thing about the list is how 'British' novels are seen from outside. Dickens is not a surprise, I think, in being a writer whose subjects are seen in many world literatures.

[ProfessorDavey]

Those lists would be accurate though!

Only if the list was compiled by people brought up on those albums - probably like err ... you and ... err ... me;D

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the interesting thing about the list is how 'British' novels are seen from outside. Dickens is not a surprise, I think, in being a writer whose subjects are seen in many world literatures.

I think what we are seeing is largely a set of novels which would have been in the orthodox cannon of novels expected to have been read and studied by individuals ultimately studying English literature at university which would probably be most of those polled - who are largely either literary journalists of English academics.

With so many novels to consider to see more than one novel by a particular author in the top 10 smacks of a narrowness of thinking. Specifically that the individual loves a particular author - which would be fine if it were a top 100 of novelists. But it is a top 100 of novels - are we really saying that Dickens third best novel is better than any novel written by any other British man ever!

And there is another element here - I wonder whether there was some overt or subtle requirement to prioritise women writers - the top three are all by women and, bar Dickens women dominate the top 11.

[Nearly Sane]

I think what we are seeing is largely a set of novels which would have been in the orthodox cannon of novels expected to have been read and studied by individuals ultimately studying English literature at university which would probably be most of those polled - who are largely either literary journalists of English academics.

With so many novels to consider to see more than one novel by a particular author in the top 10 smacks of a narrowness of thinking. Specifically that the individual loves a particular author - which would be fine if it were a top 100 of novelists. But it is a top 100 of novels - are we really saying that Dickens third best novel is better than any novel written by any other British man ever!

And there is another element here - I wonder whether there was some overt or subtle requirement to prioritise women writers - the top three are all by women and, bar Dickens women dominate the top 11.

Because obviously if women do better than men it is questionable.

[Sebastian Toe]

Only if the list was compiled by people brought up on those albums - probably like err ... you and ... err ... me;D

Not many people seem to understand that the superiority of those albums is interwoven in spacetime and is as fundamental to the fabric of the universe as the Higgs Boson!
Fact.
 

[Aruntraveller]

Because obviously if women do better than men it is questionable.

No.

Except in the case of Jeanette Winterson, who comes above DH Lawrence and Iris Murdoch.

Just piss off with your stupid list.

[ProfessorDavey]

Because obviously if women do better than men it is questionable.

Not my point at all NS.

The point being that these reviewers seems to focus on novels from 19thC and the first few decades of the 20thC. During that period it was hard for women to get novel's accepted and published - note that the no1 novel was from a woman who had to pretend she was a man to get published. And add to that the handful of women authors towards the top end were not prolific (compared to some of the men) so again a much smaller pool to choose from.

So there will be a much, much smaller pool of potential novels from that period by women compared to men. If reviewers think it important to include a decent proportion of novels by women in their list then necessarily the will cluster around a relatively small pool of potential novels by women but spread much more thinly across the much larger potential pool of novels from men.

Try this (rather more extreme) analogy. Pick 100 tennis experts and ask them to pick their top three men's Wimbledon champions, then compile as in the book list. If you did that I suspect Federer, or Borg, or Nadal, maybe Laver etc would end up the top three. Add in a caveat - at least one of your choices should be from a minority ethnic group and guess what - Arthur Ashe will win because he's the only choice for the ethnic minority pick so everyone has to choose him.

This is nothing about the quality of the novels themselves or whether women write better novels than men - nope it is about the impact of reviewers whose preference is for 19thC and early 20thC novels who feel they should be including a good proportion of novels by women.

[ProfessorDavey]

Something else has struck me looking at the list. Effectively this seems (almost exclusively) to be a list of English novels, rather than British ones - where are the Scottish and Welsh authors, they hardly feature. We have The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie but that is about it. No Walter Scott, no Robert Louis Stephenson, no JM Barry, no Arthur Conan-Doyle (to name a few from the sweet-spot era that the reviewers seem to love). But also nothing from more recent Scottish novelists.

So perhaps these non-British reviewers equate British to English.

[Nearly Sane]

Not my point at all NS.

The point being that these reviewers seems to focus on novels from 19thC and the first few decades of the 20thC. During that period it was hard for women to get novel's accepted and published - note that the no1 novel was from a woman who had to pretend she was a man to get published. And add to that the handful of women authors towards the top end were not prolific (compared to some of the men) so again a much smaller pool to choose from.

So there will be a much, much smaller pool of potential novels from that period by women compared to men. If reviewers think it important to include a decent proportion of novels by women in their list then necessarily the will cluster around a relatively small pool of potential novels by women but spread much more thinly across the much larger potential pool of novels from men.

Try this (rather more extreme) analogy. Pick 100 tennis experts and ask them to pick their top three men's Wimbledon champions, then compile as in the book list. If you did that I suspect Federer, or Borg, or Nadal, maybe Laver etc would end up the top three. Add in a caveat - at least one of your choices should be from a minority ethnic group and guess what - Arthur Ashe will win because he's the only choice for the ethnic minority pick so everyone has to choose him.

This is nothing about the quality of the novels themselves or whether women write better novels than men - nope it is about the impact of reviewers whose preference is for 19thC and early 20thC novels who feel they should be including a good proportion of novels by women.

And yet other than the Woolf's the books chosen are hugely influential. Using tennis where makes are physically better performers than women to novels writing g is a useless analogy.

[Nearly Sane]

Something else has struck me looking at the list. Effectively this seems (almost exclusively) to be a list of English novels, rather than British ones - where are the Scottish and Welsh authors, they hardly feature. We have The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie but that is about it. No Walter Scott, no Robert Louis Stephenson, no JM Barry, no Arthur Conan-Doyle (to name a few from the sweet-spot era that the reviewers seem to love). But also nothing from more recent Scottish novelists.

So perhaps these non-British reviewers equate British to English.

I agree, though Ali Smith and James Hogg are Scottish.

[ProfessorDavey]

Using tennis where makes are physically better performers than women to novels writing g is a useless analogy.

FFS NS, do you ever bother to actually read a post before commenting!!!

My analogy was:

"Pick 100 tennis experts and ask them to pick their top three men's Wimbledon champions, then compile as in the book list."

Your comment about women tennis players is completely irrelevant as my analogy was about men's Wimbledon champions. I'm shifting from category from British novels to men's Wimbledon champions and I'm shifting the diversity element from gender (women vs men novelists) to ethnicity (white vs other ethnic group tennis players).

This is to illustrate the impact of narrowing a pool - so in my analogy if you expect the experts to pick at least one ethnic minority men's Wimbledon champion there will be picking from a pool of just one, Arthur Ashe - so they will all have to pick him, so he wins (at least equal first).

Now the women novelists example is clearly not as extreme (as I pointed out) - but the point remains - there is a smaller pool of potential novels by women (particularly from the period of time these experts seem to prefer), so the experts will likely cluster around this rather small pool (the equivalent of Arthur Ashe and a couple of others if they existed in terms men's Wimbledon champions), while they will likely spread themselves more thinly across the much larger pool of potential novels by men.

And looking at the nature of the experts in the book list, as publishers, literary critics and academics they will have the notion of considering gender balance running through them like the word Blackpool in a stick of Blackpool rock. So I have little doubt (regardless of whether the BBC specifically asked them to do so or not) that they'd ensure a good proportion of the books they selected were from women to ensure there was no apparent gender bias.

But in your mind this is about me comparing men and women tennis players ... fuckwhit!!

[ProfessorDavey]

I agree, though Ali Smith and James Hogg are Scottish.

Indeed (they both sneak in in the 90s) - so that is probably 3 out of the 100 that are from Scottish novelists, and I'm struggling to find a Welsh author on the list.

Seem to be some really obvious omissions unless the experts:

a) Hate Scottish (and Welsh) novels
b) Somehow in their minds they are equating British with English.

[Gonnagle]

FFS NS, do you ever bother to actually read a post before commenting!!!

My analogy was:

"Pick 100 tennis experts and ask them to pick their top three men's Wimbledon champions, then compile as in the book list."

Your comment about women tennis players is completely irrelevant as my analogy was about men's Wimbledon champions. I'm shifting from category from British novels to men's Wimbledon champions and I'm shifting the diversity element from gender (women vs men novelists) to ethnicity (white vs other ethnic group tennis players).

This is to illustrate the impact of narrowing a pool - so in my analogy if you expect the experts to pick at least one ethnic minority men's Wimbledon champion there will be picking from a pool of just one, Arthur Ashe - so they will all have to pick him, so he wins (at least equal first).

Now the women novelists example is clearly not as extreme (as I pointed out) - but the point remains - there is a smaller pool of potential novels by women (particularly from the period of time these experts seem to prefer), so the experts will likely cluster around this rather small pool (the equivalent of Arthur Ashe and a couple of others if they existed in terms men's Wimbledon champions), while they will likely spread themselves more thinly across the much larger pool of potential novels by men.

And looking at the nature of the experts in the book list, as publishers, literary critics and academics they will have the notion of considering gender balance running through them like the word Blackpool in a stick of Blackpool rock. So I have little doubt (regardless of whether the BBC specifically asked them to do so or not) that they'd ensure a good proportion of the books they selected were from women to ensure there was no apparent gender bias.

But in your mind this is about me comparing men and women tennis players ... fuckwhit!!

Dear Prof,

Fuckwit! Fuckwit! tut tut But I blame Vlad he put you in a mood with his arse comment

Any way, great British novels, where is Spike Milligan on this list, any of his war novels, absolutely brilliant, and to put the forum in a better frame of mind a little bit of Spikes Legendary poetry.

Smiling Is Infectious
by Spike Milligan

Smiling is infectious,
you catch it like the flu,
When someone smiled at me today,
I started smiling too.
I passed around the corner
and someone saw my grin.
When he smiled I realized
I’d passed it on to him.
I thought about that smile,
then I realized its worth.
A single smile, just like mine
could travel round the earth.
So, if you feel a smile begin,
don’t leave it undetected.
Let’s start an epidemic quick,
and get the world infected!
 

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

Fuckwit! Fuckwit! tut tut But I blame Vlad he put you in a mood with his arse comment

Apologies for the language, but hey, sometimes the term fits:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fuckwit

Vlad and NS can be hugely irritating in equal measure, although in different ways (although at times rather similar). For NS this is often:

1. Repeatedly refusing to answer a simple question put to him, even as he demands answers to his questions of others ... and

2. Not actually reading what someone has actually written and then posting a confrontational response based on what he thinks they have written rather than what they actually have written.

It is the second which got me on this occasion - with NS going off at the deep end about gender differences in sports thinking that I was somehow comparing men and women tennis players. Yet my post was very clear that I was talking about men's Wimbledon champions as the analogy with British novels and also ethnicity as the analogy with gender for the novels.

No comment from NS and certainly no apology from him for simply failing to read what I had written before responding (or perhaps deliberately misinterpreting or misrepresenting my comment).

[Steve H]

If they're professional critics, they should know that 'The Chronicles of Narnia' is seven novels, not one. There was another example of the same thing.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

Apologies for the language, but hey, sometimes the term fits:

No apology necessary, I was as just jesting, I do like the odd expletive now and again, they can be quite cathartic sometimes as I will now demonstrate.

Who the fuck are these arsehole critics, were they out to impress with there choices, bunch of dickheads the lot of them, not one mention of the greatest comic, satire, fantasy, fiction writer the world has ever seen.

  With more than 100 million books sold worldwide in 43 languages, Pratchett was the UK's best-selling author of the 1990s. He was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in 1998 and was knighted for services to literature in the 2009 New Year Honours. In 2001, he won the annual Carnegie Medal for The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents, the first Discworld book marketed for children. He received the World Fantasy Award for Life Achievement in 2010.

These critics are complete and utter ladies parts ( I do have certain standards 😀 )

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

If they're professional critics, they should know that 'The Chronicles of Narnia' is seven novels, not one. There was another example of the same thing.

True - and it isn't like Lord of the Rings which is a single book divided into three parts. Each of the Narnia books are individual and complete stories even if they have a common fantasy world.

And much as I love the Narnia books for nostalgic reasons I'm struggling to see how they could be considered to be in the 100 best british novels of all time. But probably lumping them together helps as a critic simply needs to chose the whole series, rather than picking one book from the series in which case individual critics might choose a difference book and therefore none would attain the top 100.

[Steve H]

True - and it isn't like Lord of the Rings which is a single book divided into three parts. Each of the Narnia books are individual and complete stories even if they have a common fantasy world.

And much as I love the Narnia books for nostalgic reasons I'm struggling to see how they could be considered to be in the 100 best british novels of all time. But probably lumping them together helps as a critic simply needs to chose the whole series, rather than picking one book from the series in which case individual critics might choose a difference book and therefore none would attain the top 100.

Yes - I thought it was an odd choice, quite apart from its being seven, not one, and much as I too love them.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes - I thought it was an odd choice, quite apart from its being seven, not one, and much as I too love them.

I've always thought there were interesting parallels between that Narnia and Harry Potter books.

In both cases a series of 7 books, and to my mind each series has an arc of enjoyment which is somewhat similar. So the first written are fine if a bit simplistic. Then they get into their stride with around books 3 and 4 being the most enjoyable. After that a rapid law of diminishing returns as the books become increasingly stodgy, convoluted and frankly pretty unreadable. So my favourites of the Narnia books are Voyage of the Dawn Treader and Silver Chair and Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire for HP.

Magician's Nephew and the Last Battle ... hmmm, not so much. Likewise Half Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows.

[Steve H]

 thought Narnia sagged in the middle but that 'The Last Battle' was the best of all. I haven't read any HPs,though I've seen the films, but that's not the same thing.

[ProfessorDavey]

thought Narnia sagged in the middle but that 'The Last Battle' was the best of all. I haven't read any HPs,though I've seen the films, but that's not the same thing.

By 'sagged in the middle' do you mean the order they were written or the suggested chronological order for reading?

I think the HP films give a pretty similar indication to the books. Start short and sweet, get more sophisticated and enjoyable towards the middle, then disappear into a load of convoluted twaddle towards the end, with stuff suddenly thrown in that should have been apparent from the earlier books/films.

[Steve H]

By 'sagged in the middle' do you mean the order they were written or the suggested chronological order for reading?

Either - the only difference in the order is 1&2 being reversed. It's after that that it sinks, the nadir being 'The Horse and his Boy'.
{Edit} I now see that it's a bit more complicated than that. Publication order, then.