Nominate MobileRead's 10 best fiction books of the 20th Century

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by treadlightly

I don't believe a poll is the best way to go about looking at that information. How many and which books were read by a voter is interesting. If someone had read 10/12 nominees and found Book X to be the best, that is valuable information to me. And if they felt like describing why, that is even better information. If Book Y was their second choice and that happens to be my first choice, then reading Book X (if I hadn't previously) might be a great suggestion for me. A poll won't capture any of this.

I agree re naming the book/author for each of the decades (one decade per thread). The more qualitative info can't be captured as you say, but one could hope that posters may state their reasons for a particular vote.

I am volunteering to create this survey. As it will sit independently of the decade voting thread, a link could be provided in the first post.

If you look at some of the current comments in 1900-1910 Voting thread you will note that posters have read varying numbers of the listed books, from 2 onwards to 16, out of 18 books. Add me to the 2 currently read as well. Although the voting poll will be open for a month and that does allow members to read one or more of the other selections before casting their vote.

[issybird]

I'm late with this, but I see The Death of a Salesman in the 1940s and of course that's a play.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by treadlightly

I don't believe a poll is the best way to go about looking at that information. How many and which books were read by a voter is interesting. If someone had read 10/12 nominees and found Book X to be the best, that is valuable information to me. And if they felt like describing why, that is even better information. If Book Y was their second choice and that happens to be my first choice, then reading Book X (if I hadn't previously) might be a great suggestion for me. A poll won't capture any of this.

A very good point. I encourage people to mention in the discussion/voting threads how many, and which, of the nominations they have read.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by issybird

I'm late with this, but I see The Death of a Salesman in the 1940s and of course that's a play.

Thanks, removed.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

I am volunteering to create this survey. As it will sit independently of the decade voting thread, a link could be provided in the first post.

I'm happy for you to create such a poll if you wish.

[gmw]

I'm not sure I really see much point in worrying too much about how many of the nominated books a voter has read. Absolutely none of us will have read all books written in any given decade - so the vote is already skewed. The nominations have come from just that (probably quite small) subset of books from each decade that each nominator happens to have read. We are then asking people to vote on this already skewed, very tiny, subset of books from a decade. How much can it matter if they've only read a couple of them?

[gmw]

I've been curious to see a number of comments on the 1901..1910 thread where people indicate that they are effectively discarding one or more genres (eg: children's books) from their consideration for best. I didn't want to derail that thread, so making my observation here - I hope that's okay.

Disclaimer: As already discussed here, we are each using our own rules for choosing what "best" means for each of us, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone using whatever rules they see fit. I just found it ... odd, interesting, curious.

I did hesitate before nominating children's books for the vote. Part of that was seeing the serious literature in the nominations, and I started to think that maybe I was the only person at the party who forgot to arrive in fancy dress. And part of that was wondering whether I had missed some implicit words in the subject line, that maybe we were looking for only the "best serious adult fictional literature".

But I went ahead and nominated them anyway. The reason being that - for me - "best" includes books that influenced me, and books that I can see have influenced others. So, for me, that has to include some children's books. Given my own interpretation of best, I found I could not ignore books that I not only enjoyed very much (and still enjoy), and that I know were enjoyed by others, but have also generated ongoing comments and adaptations since their publication.

None of this means any of my nominations should necessarily win a vote for their decade, that's not what I'm trying to say. There are some amazing works of fiction out there in every decade. No, my observation is merely that I find it odd that anyone should discard entire genres from consideration - it's apparent that we are using very different rules for "best".

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Thanks, removed.

I hated it anyway.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by gmw

I've been curious to see a number of comments on the 1901..1910 thread where people indicate that they are effectively discarding one or more genres (eg: children's books) from their consideration for best. I didn't want to derail that thread, so making my observation here - I hope that's okay.

Disclaimer: As already discussed here, we are each using our own rules for choosing what "best" means for each of us, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone using whatever rules they see fit. I just found it ... odd, interesting, curious.

I did hesitate before nominating children's books for the vote. Part of that was seeing the serious literature in the nominations, and I started to think that maybe I was the only person at the party who forgot to arrive in fancy dress. And part of that was wondering whether I had missed some implicit words in the subject line, that maybe we were looking for only the "best serious adult fictional literature".

But I went ahead and nominated them anyway. The reason being that - for me - "best" includes books that influenced me, and books that I can see have influenced others. So, for me, that has to include some children's books. Given my own interpretation of best, I found I could not ignore books that I not only enjoyed very much (and still enjoy), and that I know were enjoyed by others, but have also generated ongoing comments and adaptations since their publication.

None of this means any of my nominations should necessarily win a vote for their decade, that's not what I'm trying to say. There are some amazing works of fiction out there in every decade. No, my observation is merely that I find it odd that anyone should discard entire genres from consideration - it's apparent that we are using very different rules for "best".

My sense is that they weren't discarding children's books per se, but saying they weren't going to read them for this poll/selection. And for that particular kind of book, it can make perfect sense. My re-read of Nancy Drew in my 30s found me astounded at the simplicity of the mystery and vocabulary! Those books definitely influenced my reading and my person. They were intricate! Detailed! Fabulous stories! But re-reading them as an adult...well, it can be hard to give it a "fair" reading. It can also be hard to be impacted the way a young adult or child would be.

Originally Posted by gmw

I've been curious to see a number of comments on the 1901..1910 thread where people indicate that they are effectively discarding one or more genres (eg: children's books) from their consideration for best. I didn't want to derail that thread, so making my observation here - I hope that's okay.

Disclaimer: As already discussed here, we are each using our own rules for choosing what "best" means for each of us, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone using whatever rules they see fit. I just found it ... odd, interesting, curious.

I did hesitate before nominating children's books for the vote. Part of that was seeing the serious literature in the nominations, and I started to think that maybe I was the only person at the party who forgot to arrive in fancy dress. And part of that was wondering whether I had missed some implicit words in the subject line, that maybe we were looking for only the "best serious adult fictional literature".

But I went ahead and nominated them anyway. The reason being that - for me - "best" includes books that influenced me, and books that I can see have influenced others. So, for me, that has to include some children's books. Given my own interpretation of best, I found I could not ignore books that I not only enjoyed very much (and still enjoy), and that I know were enjoyed by others, but have also generated ongoing comments and adaptations since their publication.

None of this means any of my nominations should necessarily win a vote for their decade, that's not what I'm trying to say. There are some amazing works of fiction out there in every decade. No, my observation is merely that I find it odd that anyone should discard entire genres from consideration - it's apparent that we are using very different rules for "best".

As someone who is guilty as charged . . .

To me it was just making a choice when confronted with say a basket of apples, a basket of oranges, a basket of plums, etc. and being asked pick the best piece of fruit out there. Now there are some genres that I did and will just eliminate from consideration (just wait until we get to decades where SciFi/Fantasy seem to dominate the list) because such books just don't interest me. When it comes to passing on books written for children the reasoning is different. The Wind in the Willows is a great children's book, it's just for me if I have to chose a single best it's going to be in adult literature. BTW if the poll was about the best book for children I would certainly put forth one of the books by Dr. Suess, the man was a genius at producing books for his intended audience.

[HomeInMyShoes]

I have an update for my nominations if it is not too late.

1931-1940 Ali and Nino by Kurban Said

As relevant in 1937 when it was originally written as now.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

My sense is that they weren't discarding children's books per se, but saying they weren't going to read them for this poll/selection. And for that particular kind of book, it can make perfect sense. My re-read of Nancy Drew in my 30s found me astounded at the simplicity of the mystery and vocabulary! Those books definitely influenced my reading and my person. They were intricate! Detailed! Fabulous stories! But re-reading them as an adult...well, it can be hard to give it a "fair" reading. It can also be hard to be impacted the way a young adult or child would be.

I can understand this sentiment. It so happens, however, that the two I nominated are among several supposedly children's books that I still regularly re-read and enjoy. I didn't nominate them from distant memory, but from recent experience. The best children's stories show a talent with language and expression that is often overlooked, but which can make them a joy at any age. These are the things that make them worthy, in my eyes, to stand among the others listed. (Okay, so there was a period in my life when I was much too mature and worldly to pick them up, but thankfully I've gotten over that. )

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

As someone who is guilty as charged . . .

To me it was just making a choice when confronted with say a basket of apples, a basket of oranges, a basket of plums, etc. and being asked pick the best piece of fruit out there. Now there are some genres that I did and will just eliminate from consideration (just wait until we get to decades where SciFi/Fantasy seem to dominate the list) because such books just don't interest me. When it comes to passing on books written for children the reasoning is different. The Wind in the Willows is a great children's book, it's just for me if I have to chose a single best it's going to be in adult literature. BTW if the poll was about the best book for children I would certainly put forth one of the books by Dr. Suess, the man was a genius at producing books for his intended audience.

I certainly didn't intend anyone to feel "guilty". I was just curious. I will be even more curious to see if anyone else feels as I do about these nominations.

It is difficult to pick just one "best". There's some great stuff in the lists. I tend to read pretty widely, not eschewing any genre in particular, and that only makes the choice harder. For example "All Quiet on the Western Front" is up there with my "Winnie-the-Pooh" nomination - you can't get works much further apart than that. They are both great books (in my opinion), but they are totally different experiences. Comparison just isn't really possible. What I can say is that I know which one I could happily recommend to pretty much anyone that can read.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by gmw

I can understand this sentiment. It so happens, however, that the two I nominated are among several supposedly children's books that I still regularly re-read and enjoy. I didn't nominate them from distant memory, but from recent experience. The best children's stories show a talent with language and expression that is often overlooked, but which can make them a joy at any age. These are the things that make them worthy, in my eyes, to stand among the others listed. (Okay, so there was a period in my life when I was much too mature and worldly to pick them up, but thankfully I've gotten over that. )

.

If that is the case, you should make that point on the thread discussing the various merits of the books--I have not recently re-read Anne of GG so I cannot really speak to it as an adult. It would be great to hear from you over there stating your thoughts on the matter for whichever children's books you think hold up!

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by gmw

I'm not sure I really see much point in worrying too much about how many of the nominated books a voter has read.

It's a voluntary activity, and will capture data abut the poll that adds to the general interest, and perhaps help to explain voting outcomes, imo. No different in that respect from the bio data that Paul's poll is capturing.

Originally Posted by gmw

I've been curious to see a number of comments on the 1901..1910 thread where people indicate that they are effectively discarding one or more genres (eg: children's books) from their consideration for best. I didn't want to derail that thread, so making my observation here - I hope that's okay.

Disclaimer: As already discussed here, we are each using our own rules for choosing what "best" means for each of us, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone using whatever rules they see fit. I just found it ... odd, interesting, curious

My voting choice is limited to 3 books (currently) read for the 1901-1910 period - Grahame, Montgomery, and Richardson. So that means that my choice for 'best' will only considered as a children's or young adult book. (I've posted before that I'd read only two books, I miscounted )

That doesn't concern me because I chose my book based on what 'best talked to me about my country, my people and their thoughts and attitudes', and can now, in the final vote, choose to retain my original premise, or consider another premise for this (and ensuing) decade/s. (gmw, you'd be aware that as a nation we don't seem to discuss and seriously consider our own authors works as frequently as we do other authors works, so for this vote I changed the balance. And I guess that some may consider that as a xenophobic attitude - nope!)

For those prospective voters who have read a lot of the list, say half and above, well they seem, to me, to be in a position to identify 'best' according to a more stringent criteria. And I don't necessarily envy that!!

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by gmw

I can understand this sentiment. It so happens, however, that the two I nominated are among several supposedly children's books that I still regularly re-read and enjoy. I didn't nominate them from distant memory, but from recent experience. The best children's stories show a talent with language and expression that is often overlooked, but which can make them a joy at any age. These are the things that make them worthy, in my eyes, to stand among the others listed. (Okay, so there was a period in my life when I was much too mature and worldly to pick them up, but thankfully I've gotten over that. )



I certainly didn't intend anyone to feel "guilty". I was just curious. I will be even more curious to see if anyone else feels as I do about these nominations.

It is difficult to pick just one "best". There's some great stuff in the lists. I tend to read pretty widely, not eschewing any genre in particular, and that only makes the choice harder. For example "All Quiet on the Western Front" is up there with my "Winnie-the-Pooh" nomination - you can't get works much further apart than that. They are both great books (in my opinion), but they are totally different experiences. Comparison just isn't really possible. What I can say is that I know which one I could happily recommend to pretty much anyone that can read.

That's why I am impressed with the process, over the actual selection. So many great books (as people here select great books) for me to read for the first time...