Moby Dick was worth it. It's worth it just for the miscellaneous stuff about whaling. I doubt it's worth Nick reading "Catcher..." now, because he's not a teenager any more even in spirit. It was really good when I read it close to Holden's age but I suspect I wouldn't really enjoy it now.
What sort of "top 100" is this anyway? I didn't like Wasp Factory anywhere near as much as "Whit" or, to be more mainstream, "The Bridge" (or way less mainstream "Excession") so I doubt it's about popularity. On the other hand, from a literary point of view, how do we end up with "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" but not (unless I missed it) "Alice in Wonderland" ?
There's the usual distaste for genre unless it has been sanctified as mainstream fiction, so we can have Lewis and Tolkien but no Vernor Vinge, no Phil Dick (and on this sort of list they wouldn't have felt obliged to pick the unreadable "Ubik"), no Raymond Chandler...
Is it just a question of movies? I'm a bit scared now, looking at the list. Moby Dick? Check. Shakespeare? Check. His Dark Materials? Check. Wuthering Heights? Check. Catch 22? Check. Oh dear. This is a list of movies, some great movies of not so great books, and some terrible movies of novels that should never have gone near the big screen. Still doesn't explain choosing Charlie over Alice, since both were made into mediocre movies - nor the lack of Phil Dick now that I come to think about it.
Oh, and Rebecaa won't be the same after I saw that comedy sketch that has it backwards, with the first wife gradually becoming aware that actually everyone is waiting for her successor who they much prefer.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
zvi and
no subject
Date: 2008-06-30 05:12 pm (UTC)What sort of "top 100" is this anyway? I didn't like Wasp Factory anywhere near as much as "Whit" or, to be more mainstream, "The Bridge" (or way less mainstream "Excession") so I doubt it's about popularity. On the other hand, from a literary point of view, how do we end up with "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" but not (unless I missed it) "Alice in Wonderland" ?
There's the usual distaste for genre unless it has been sanctified as mainstream fiction, so we can have Lewis and Tolkien but no Vernor Vinge, no Phil Dick (and on this sort of list they wouldn't have felt obliged to pick the unreadable "Ubik"), no Raymond Chandler...
Is it just a question of movies? I'm a bit scared now, looking at the list. Moby Dick? Check. Shakespeare? Check. His Dark Materials? Check. Wuthering Heights? Check. Catch 22? Check. Oh dear. This is a list of movies, some great movies of not so great books, and some terrible movies of novels that should never have gone near the big screen. Still doesn't explain choosing Charlie over Alice, since both were made into mediocre movies - nor the lack of Phil Dick now that I come to think about it.
Oh, and Rebecaa won't be the same after I saw that comedy sketch that has it backwards, with the first wife gradually becoming aware that actually everyone is waiting for her successor who they much prefer.