I admit it, I read the Grauniad. I read a British right wing rag to get some sense of balance, and I found the Grauniad to be the least insane. It has many faults, such as a failure to comprehend the pastoral, but nothing’s perfect, especially on the political right.
Furthermore, the Grauniad went up in my books because it published an obituary for Prynne, who regretably died earlier this year.
It has also, recently, published 100 Best Novels, twice: once selected by selected sycophants, once selected by self–selected sycophants, namely readers (no links, the grauniad, being typical right wingers, put their profit before your online security).
I was surprised by the results. A good number of novels deserved their place. I would argue with a many selections, but who wouldn’t? No, what surprised me was the lack of certain genres, and the inclusion of others.
The surprise inclusion for me was science–fiction, not because it didn’t deserve inclusion, but because, for most of my reading life, it was sneered upon by a self–appointed ignoranti. I suppose, like Brexiteers will soon do so, these tasteless died out from old age and shame.
I was amazed that Banks was not on the list, with his frequent (and unusually sane) theme of artificial intelligence, given it’s powerful impact on contemporary discourse—but there you are.
I was more surprised by the absence of certain genres. There were no children’s books. There was only one whodunnit. They are genres with strong restrictions, which perhaps makes them more difficult to write well. But excluding either would be like producing a list of a hundred best poems and excluding haiku because they keep going on about the weather.
A list of 100 best novels that excludes Chandler or Hammett, as examples, is merely a list of a 100 rather good novels.
I remember, as a youngster, very much appreciating Arthur Ransome’s books. Now, as an adult, I’m not in the natural readership for children’s books. That, though, is no reason to avoid them. There are some very good children’s novels that I’ve read as an adult, & not just because the author was too lazy to write them before she was born.
Consider Rowling: she’s had an immense impact on children’s readership. Refusing to consider her work because she allows her fear to decide her politics is like trying to deny the impact of Wagner’s operas. Just because I disagree fundamentally with someone is no reason to deny their œuvre. Weakness and failure and error is part of what it is to be human.
A list of 100 best novels that excludes authors such as Ransome or Rowling, as examples, is merely a list of a 100 rather good novels.
I don’t know why so many genres were excluded, whether by editorial choice or nasty listers, but it was a mistake.